Read Online Dante's Dilemma by Lynne Raimondo - Free Book Online

fake.
    â€œThat’s true,” I said. “There’s no professional consensus on a BWS diagnosis or even any empirical evidence that the syndrome actually exists. That’s not to say battered women can’t be traumatized—and sometimes severely so—just that there are better ways of looking at the problem. PTSD is one of them, along with other, more generalized anxiety disorders.”
    â€œAnd you’re an expert on the subject?”
    â€œI did a year-long fellowship on PTSD after my residency, and I’ve since treated a lot of veterans suffering from combat stress. It’s maybe twenty percent of my clinical practice at the moment.”
    â€œGood. Practical experience is good. Current practical experience is even better.”
    â€œOK. But perhaps you could explain to this layman how PTSD—or BWS as the defense claims—would excuse Lazarus’s actions. I know the theory’s often raised as a defense to criminal charges, but on what legal basis?”
    O’Malley appeared to think before replying. “It quickly gets complicated, but the short answer is that PTSD is relevant to two defense theories. One, that Lazarus acted in self-defense because she reasonably believed killing her husband was necessary to prevent imminent harm to herself or someone else. Two, that she acted with diminished capacity.”
    â€œAn insanity defense?”
    â€œYes. It’s a stretch, unless you tell us that her condition rendered her incapable of appreciating the criminality of her conduct. The first theory is more plausible, if the defense can get past the imminence standard. Lazarus wasn’t living with her husband at the time, so what made her believe she was in danger when she went to his home to kill him? That’s not your issue—it’s up to the jury to decide what Lazarus subjectively believed—but the defense will try to push you in the direction of saying fear of imminent death would be a natural consequence of her illness. You’ll have your work cut out for you on cross-examination. Lazarus’s lead lawyer is a sharp little cookie—an alum of this office, as a matter of fact—and she’ll have you swearing on a stack of Bibles that Lazarus is innocent if you’re not careful.”
    I was so caught up in thinking about the intellectual challenges of the case that I failed to register the subtle shift in her presentation—from studied neutrality to prosecutorial one-sidedness—or even to ask the name of the defense lawyer in question.
    â€œWill I have access to Ms. Lazarus?” I asked.
    â€œAs much as her lawyers will allow.”
    â€œAnd to all of the material Dr. Stephens collected?” If Brad Stephens had done his homework, a virtual certainty in my book, he would also have sought corroborating evidence from numerous sources in addition to Lazarus—her family, colleagues, and friends, along with police reports and other pertinent data—before forming an opinion. I’d never be able to replicate all his spadework in time, so I’d have to rely heavily on the fruits of his investigation.
    â€œMichelle here was assisting him. She’ll make sure all of the case files are sent to you.”
    â€œAnd his final report?”
    â€œIt’s here, still in an unopened envelope.” O’Malley pushed it across the table to me.
    â€œAnd as of today you really don’t know how he came out?” I asked, taking up the envelope and running my fingers over it. The flap was sealed tight with several layers of plastic tape.
    O’Malley said, “One thing you’ll learn about me, Doctor, is that I don’t pull any punches. I’ve said it publicly and I’ll say it again: I view my job as seeking justice, not getting convictions. Yes, I’d like to know where this prosecution is headed, but we’ll wait to hear from you. Obviously, only after you’ve had a chance