Tuesday, June 26, 2007 — Death row may be just hours away for Guy Tobias LeGrande; the Stanly County man convicted of killing 26-year-old mother of two, Ellen Munford.
LeGrande, who was sentenced to death for the crime, entered the Stanly County Courthouse this morning around 9:30 a.m. for what could be the final hearing to decide if he’s legally competent to be executed.
Since his arrest and conviction for the 1993 shotgun slaying, questions about whether or not LeGrande was fit to represent himself in the trial have hovered around the case.
More recently, those questions have translated into doubts as to whether or not he is fit for execution.
Following a Nov. 27, 2006 court appearance, just three days before his scheduled Dec. 1, execution date, Judge Robert Bell sent LeGrande to Dorothea Dix Hospital in Raleigh for a 60-day psychiatric evaluation period meant to remove lingering doubts regarding his legally debated mental state.
Afterward he was to return for a competency hearing; however, efforts to assess the convicted man’s mental competency took longer than the allotted time set aside for evaluation.
A week before the first evaluation was due; Bell filed a court order to extend the time limit on the evaluation and Monday was selected for the reconvening.
LeGrande’s attorney, Jay Ferguson, said in an amendment to his motion to stay the execution, no definitive conclusion was reached about the death row inmate’s mental state. The amendment intimated no specific disorder was diagnosed and multiple disorders should be considered.
Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar type, Bipolar 1 Disorder, Manic with psychotic features, and Delusional Disorder all made the list of possibilities.
LeGrande, who denies having any sort of disorder, appeared before Bell Monday for the first time since the court ordered evaluation. Since his arrest for the homicide, LeGrande has maintained he’s innocent of the crime. He further maintains he’s competent.
Yet neither defense attorney Jay Ferguson, nor the prosecution team is convinced of those claims.
As Monday’s hearing progressed, the debate emerged more as a battle of whose psychiatric evaluation was most accurate – the one suggesting he’s legally fit for execution or the one suggesting he’s not.
Ferguson, like others who’ve represented LeGrande, is moving forward even with out cooperation from the defendant.
In a “hair-splitting” display of disorder definition minutia, two key figures in the day’s testimonies were questioned, cross examined, and picked at for the psychiatric gem that could decide the matter.
Each was accepted by the court as an expert witness and demonstrated detailed knowledge of psychiatric structure and disorder.
For the defense, Dr. Nicole Wolf, the senior-most forensic psychiatrist at Dorothea Dix, took the stand.
Wolf, who’s performed hundreds of pre-trial forensic evaluations, 90 percent of which were competency evaluations, at least seven of which were capital cases believes LeGrande has multiple mental illnesses and is not competent for execution.
LeGrande is the first defendant she’s been convinced is not competent. She contends he lacks crucial aspects of comprehension, displays significant psychotic symptoms and possesses a major psychotic disorder.
Phrases such as, “consistent with psychotic condition,” “consistent with delusional disorder,” “loose association,” and “thought disorder,” were staples in descriptions of LeGrande’s behavior and relationships with people.
Wolf cited numerous written examples of LeGrande’s belief that he will be awarded a hefty financial settlement and move to a tropical island upon being pardoned.
“He’s looking at an execution date and saying that’s the date he’ll be pardoned,” she said.
“I definitely believe he has a serious mental disorder.”
Perhaps the most telling comment though was one of Wolf’s shortest answers based directly on one of several legal criteria for determining competency in regards to sentencing.
“Do you believe Mr. LeGrande is able to contribute to his defense?” Ferguson asked of Wolf.
“No I do not,” she said.
Wolf sat through further questioning of her expertise and was permitted to leave the stand.
For the prosecution, Dr. Jonathan Weiner, a board certified forensic psychiatrist and professor of outpatient psychiatry at Duke University in Durham supported LeGrande’s fitness for execution.
Weiner, who’s evaluated for and testified in roughly 20 state and 12 federal cases, contends LeGrande is mentally ill, but not so much so that he lacks understanding of what the case is about and where it could lead.
He testified LeGrande was mildly bipolar, but said the disorder was not presented at a level that challenges his competency.
In support of his contentions Weiner described LeGrande’s attempts to gain ground by repeatedly writing to the state governor requesting pardons.
“It was clear overall that Mr. LeGrande was incredibly productive,” he said.
The bipolar disorder gave him the drive and focus to study the law and participate in preparing his case, he said.
Because LeGrande refused to submit to any sort of formal psychiatric evaluation, much of the testimony was based on letters LeGrande has written throughout the past decade and silent DVD recordings of him in his cell.
That is until early May when Bell engaged him in an extended in-court conversation or interview. That talk prompted another evaluation report from Weiner.
“He smiles and grins a lot,” Weiner said.
“He seems to enjoy everything; his mood is a little on the elated side and in his talk with the judge he was even more elated.”It was also from that talk Weiner, along with all those present, saw examples of LeGrande’s thought process.
“He really bridged off into psychotic thinking,” Weiner said of some of the defendant’s responses.
But he held to the notion that LeGrande was on the edge of psychosis not to the point of complete detachment and not so psychotic that he loses the ability to deal with the world in a rational way.
After answering more questions from the defense, Weiner stepped down.
Expert testimony confirmed siblings of schizophrenics run a much higher risk of major mental illness than those of non-schizophrenics. LeGrande has one sibling who is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and one who is diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
Neither of the two expert witnesses questioned LeGrande’s intelligence nor did either question his status as a mentally ill inmate, of those subjects, only the severity of his mental illness was not agreed upon.
Ferguson pointed out LeGrande’s been recorded in his cell marching for more than three consecutive hours, a comment that brought a wide, seemingly proud, smile and exaggerated head-nodding from LeGrande.
Shortly before recessing the hearing, Bell asked LeGrande if he had anything to say.
LeGrande consented, but rather than address any of the day’s testimony, he brought up a topic from the previous hearing in May regarding what his first meal might be upon being pardoned.
He said it was based on letter he’d written to an associate and because the associate was not present he was reluctant to discuss it, but that he’d retrieved a copy of it from a box of letters provided him by the prosecution.
“He wasn’t here,” LeGrande said of the letter’s recipient.
“That’s still protected under the lawyer client clause.”
