ST. PAUL, Minn. - Scott County prosecutors and defense attorneys for Charles Anthony Maddox Jr. faced a barrage of questions from three Minnesota Court of Appeals judges Wednesday morning in St. Paul.
For about 35 minutes, the judges asked attorneys for details and case law supporting their arguments regarding the admissibility of expert testimony about acute stress disorder, hearsay and e-mail evidence relating to the second-degree murder case against Maddox.
Maddox is accused of murdering his 45-year-old estranged wife and Shakopee Valley News reporter Ruth Anne Maddox in their Prior Lake townhome on Nov. 12, 2008. He has pleaded not guilty.
A former Warsaw resident, Ruth Anne, 45, worked for the Times-Union from April 1, 1987, to July 8, 2003. During her tenure at the Times-Union, she covered general assignments, as well as police and courts under the bylines of Ruth Anne Lipka and Ruth Anne Long.
During a pretrial hearing on Feb. 11, Scott County District Court Judge Jerome Abrams ruled that he would allow the defense to present a psychologist's "no opinion" expert testimony about acute stress disorder, which is the first stage of post-traumatic stress disorder, to explain a person's response following a traumatic experience. Abrams also told attorneys he would not rule on hearsay or e-mail evidence in the case prior to hearing the testimony during the jury trial.
The Scott County Attorney's Office has argued that the expert testimony is not admissible because it is irrelevant and goes toward a diminished capacity defense.
On Wednesday, Assistant Scott County Attorney Todd Zettler argued that expert testimony about acute stress disorder should not be allowed as a rebuttal to evidence prosecutors intend to present that shows Maddox attempted to hide Ruth Anne Maddox's body and cover up evidence of her murder.
"The after-the-fact cover-up not only goes to consciousness of guilt, but it also shows intent," he said.
Abrams' ruling to allow expert testimony about acute stress disorder to negate everything that happened immediately following a traumatic, life-threatening event would have "critical impact" on the prosecution's case and was "an abuse of discretion by the District Court," Zettler said.
Judge Wilhelma M. Wright asked Zettler whether Maddox shouldn't have a right to explain the event differently.
Zettler replied "yes," but he said it is not admissible to argue that his actions were the result of some psychological disorder, because that is the type of diminished capacity evidence is not admissible in Minnesota, he said.
Judge Francis J. Connolly asked Zettler why it's different than allowing expert testimony about battered women syndrome.
Battered women syndrome is not a mental disorder, Zettler argued. The defense can't give psychological testimony on one hand and then take it away with the other, Zettler said. Evidence goes to the intent both before and after the event.
Defense Attorney Julie Nelson argued that the expert testimony is relevant to fairly be able to explain and refute the plethora of evidence the prosecution is expected to bring forth in the trial about Maddox's behavior after the event.
The testimony will provide a jury with an alternative explanation, she said. The behavior can be explained to a jury by an expert's general testimony about acute stress disorder and the fundamental psychology of people exposed to traumatic events, she said.
When ruling to allow the expert testimony, Abrams stated that the testimony will be limited in scope and will have no opinions or specifics, Nelson said. The defense has no intention of having the expert testimony give an opinion as to whether Maddox's behavior in this case was PTSD-induced. The defense wasn't going to diminished capacity, Nelson said.
Wright asked Nelson if this testimony could be confusing when asking a jury to decide if the conduct could be explained by acute stress disorder.
"We're providing a point of reference for the jury to consider the fact that this behavior maybe had something to do with something else," Nelson said. "The rules of evidence provide that this type of evidence should be allowed."
"I'm a little troubled if a jury can't be trusted to separate if this is acute stress disorder or an attempt to cover up a crime," said Judge Harriet Lansing.
The discussion then turned to the admissibility of controversial e-mails and hearsay, upon which Abrams has yet to make a ruling.
Connolly asked Nelson what more the District Court needed to rule on the e-mails.
The District Court did not suppress the e-mails entirely, Nelson answered. But Abrams did state that in its present form the e-mail evidence is unduly prejudicial and suggested a redaction. The District Court wouldn't admit the e-mails in their present form, she said.
In the written argument submitted to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Scott County Attorney's Office argues that Abrams' ruling that e-mail evidence is unduly prejudicial "critically impacts" their case because the e-mails provide a "powerful motive" for murder.
The defense argues that hearsay and e-mail evidence they intend to show as evidence support Maddox's claim of self-defense and/or the reasonableness of the degree of force used in his defense.
The questions about hearsay had to do with foundation and chain of custody, Nelson said, stating that she wasn't at that court hearing when the issue was discussed, so she was hesitant to speculate what Abrams was thinking when he made the ruling. It appears something was missing, she said.
Abrams stated on the record that he wanted to let the hearsay evidence come out during trial and then decide about foundation.
"How does that work in trial?" Connolly asked. "Shouldn't that happen in pretrial?"
Connolly, Wright and Lansing took the case under advisement and will make a ruling within 90 days. After a decision is rendered, the case will be scheduled to move forward in Scott County District Court.
