3.Robert H. Gordon — Redirect/Recross (Part 3)
169 linesREDIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY FREMGEN:
MR. FREMGEN: The, um, prosecutor asked you a couple of questions I want to follow up on from before. Uh, Doctor, one question was asked of you whether you're familiar with any other psychologists in Wisconsin who have, uh, performed similar evaluations and testified similarly. You indicated, no?
ROBERT H. GORDON: That's correct.
MR. FREMGEN: Are you aware of any other jurisdictions where that might have occurred?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes. And other states.
MR. FREMGEN: In other states. Your report, would it be fair to call it a summary of all of your observations, evaluation and tests?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: Did you include in that summary report -- and, again, I believe it's a five-page report? Do you recall that?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I --
MR. FREMGEN: And, actually, you know what I'll do? I'll mark that as an exhibit if the State has no objection.
MR. KRATZ: No, I think it's appropriate, Judge.
(Exhibit 231 marked for identification)
THE COURT: All right. Is that Exhibit 230 then?
COURT CLERK: Two thirty-one.
THE COURT: Two thirty-one?
MR. FREMGEN: (By Attorney Fremgen) I'm going to show you what has been marked Exhibit 231. Is this the report that was what you were talking about -- or, do you believe this is the report that was discussed on cross-examination?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: Now, one question of you, Doctor, was whether or not you included all of the, uh, questions and answers from the 16-PF in that summary report; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Did it include all of the responses to all the questions?
MR. FREMGEN: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: Why not?
ROBERT H. GORDON: It would not have helped with the interpretation and, secondly, it would have been very unwieldy to include all reports. I mean, all questions and responses. And it would have been a violation of my ethics.
MR. FREMGEN: Well, what do you mean by "unwieldy?" Do you mean that it would have been a 50- or 60-page report?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Oh, at least that, if I would have included an interpretation of -- of each question for each item on all of the personality tests.
MR. FREMGEN: And, again, that would -- you know, if I would go further and ask you the same with the MMPI, if you included all 478 questions and responses, how would that have affected or impacted on the -- the summary report in and of itself?
MR. KRATZ: Judge, I'm going to interpose an objection. I think my question was are those items that were contrary or contradictory to his opinion, why they weren't included. I didn't ask this doctor whether he included every answer to every test.
THE COURT: That's my recollection of the question, Counsel.
MR. FREMGEN: (By Attorney Fremgen) Doctor, is it normal procedure by a forensic, or, for that matter, clinical, psychologist to include the actual question and answers of tests in a summary report?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Absolutely not.
MR. FREMGEN: Why not?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Well, like I -- I said, it's a -- I -- I -- when you purchase these tests, you -- you agree that you have a certain level of training, and I document that for -- so you even can buy it. And, then, there's contractually, you agree that you won't disseminate this to anyone other than psychologists.
Uh, secondly, by extracting individual questions, it -- it -- it would not -- it would be misleading. It would not provide for a solid report.
MR. FREMGEN: How do you view a summary report?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I do my best to summarize all of the objective data that's relevant to a given case so that the conclusions, uh, in my report could be understood, based on what precedes it in the report.
MR. FREMGEN: Do you believe that Exhibit 231, essentially, complies with your understanding of what should be in a summary report?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: Upon cross-examination, an issue was brought up about, um, anxiety; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: Uh, observations of anxiety and, um, whether there was -- may have been -- I -- I believe it was the 16-PF, or could have been the, uh -- I'm sorry, I believe it was the 16-PF, some observation on a question that deals with anxiety; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: Did you, in your mental status evaluation, ever observe what you believed, based upon your, uh, training and experience as a clinical, as well as forensic psychologist, anxiety when you spoke with Brendan Dassey?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: So even if it's not in a test, could you still discern whether someone might be exhibiting anxiety?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Even if it's not in a test, uh, I could form some conclusions regarding anxiety, uh, just from a interview.
MR. FREMGEN: The, uh, MMPI-A that you testified about, uh, you indicated you weren't sure, or can't recall, if you actually asked the questions and circled the answers, or whether Brendan actually circled the answers on the score sheet; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: That's the 478 questions you had talked about?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: Are the results interpreted by you?
ROBERT H. GORDON: They're interpreted by me and hypothesis come from a computer, initially.
MR. FREMGEN: Let me ask you this, Doctor: When you -- after you complete the test, where do you send it? Or do you send it somewhere?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I, or one of my assistants, hand enter the responses into a computer, and it electronically is sent to, uh, Minnesota, and a report is immediately generated, including the scores, and sent back to my --
MR. FREMGEN: And you -- when you receive that, you receive, basically, the -- the scores, and I believe it was Exhibit, uh -- I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 229? And, again, this is what the results would show from the MMPI-A?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Those are four scales contained on the MMPI-A.
MR. FREMGEN: So four of the 70 scales you had discussed on cross-examination were on this exhibit; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: But what you receive is the number, where it says score; is that correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: And percentile, you receive that also from the manufacturer who -- who tallies up the answers and provides you with a computer-generated score?
ROBERT H. GORDON: No, I -- I personally know from charts and books and how to look up what particular T scores -- the, uh, 72, for example, and I know how to convert that into the percentile. So I do that on my own.
MR. FREMGEN: So the score, itself, is generated by the computer and you provided perc -- a percentile to that?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: Are all 70 scales that you testified about on cross-examination pertinent, in your opinion, as to the issue of suggestibility?
MR. FREMGEN: Are the scales on Exhibit 229 that you've included from the MMPI, in your opinion, pertinent in reaching your conclusion as to suggestibility?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Are the -- what -- what's Exhibit 229?
MR. FREMGEN: I'm sorry. The one on the screen. The MMPI?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Three of four are pertinent. I -- I listed the high scores from the -- high -- high scores from the clinical scales, and the basic clinical profile, and the high scores from the additional scales beyond the basic ten.
MR. FREMGEN: Why are these three pertinent, where the other 70 are not pertinent, in your opinion, in reaching the conclusions about suggestibility?
ROBERT H. GORDON: My review of the other scales sh -- was -- shows that those scores were either not consistent with, or consistent with, uh -- they weren't related to whether a person was suggestible or not. So I -- I didn't include them.
MR. FREMGEN: Is that information that you incorporate from your research, uh -- or from the research from Gudjonsson?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Gudjonsson and others.
MR. FREMGEN: In totality, the -- all the tests and inventories that you've used, are these considered objective inventories and tests or subjective?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Objective.
MR. FREMGEN: Why is it that you want objective tests in addition to your clinical judgment?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Objective tests are based on research from a variety of institutions with thousands of subjects and result in reliable scores that are the same scores obtained over and over. And by obtaining the same score over and over on a given scale, then you can see if they're valid. That is, if those scores are connected to other variables, such as, uh, depression, such as, whatever the case might be. And that's how those scales are obtained, based on -- on, uh, well-accepted research that's been taught to me in 197 -- early '70's, and for that as well, up until now.
MR. FREMGEN: And getting back to the objective nature of these tests, they're actually -- would you -- well, do you actually make the test yourself or does somebody else make them?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I don't make the tests. That's -- someone else take -- has made the test.
MR. FREMGEN: And you've testified previously that you've, uh, performed thousands of evaluations before? Clinical as well as forensic?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: And you use objective tests in those types of evaluations as well?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I only use objective tests, uh, since 1978. I -- I -- my review of the literature suggests that, uh, projective tests are not useful.
MR. FREMGEN: So you use objective tests along with your own clinical analysis and judgment?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: And, at times in the past, when you've done evaluations, um, using objective tests, have the results always been consistent?
MR. FREMGEN: Were your results in this case consistent?
ROBERT H. GORDON: All of the personality tests were consistent, as were the IQ tests, which were consistent with my conclusion -- my conclusion.
MR. FREMGEN: What significance would you place on the consistency of the objective tests with your conclusion?
ROBERT H. GORDON: It's highly unusual that that occurs and it provided me with more competence in the interpretation and conclusions that I reached regards -- regarding the present case.
MR. FREMGEN: On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked you about the March 1, 2006, video; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: You indicated that was not absolutely necessary, but was helpful, in your determination of suggestibility; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: Why was it that you feel it was not absolutely necessary in making that determination?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Because one can rely on interview and objective tests that I use to assess whether a person has psychological characteristics that cause them to be susceptible to suggestibility and giving confessions when, uh, there's pressure applied.
MR. FREMGEN: What -- what was helpful then, about the video once you made your initial opinion about suggestibility?
ROBERT H. GORDON: It confirmed that, in various cases, uh, yield and shift-type of questions, uh, and different ways to obtain a confession were -- were evident.
MR. FREMGEN: Well, and let me just follow up on the yield and shift, um, answer. The -- the prosecutor, in cross-examination, mentioned that you left out of your report examples of times Brendan resisted suggestion; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: And you said you did?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I did.
MR. FREMGEN: And -- and you -- I think you also confirmed that you noted times on the tape that he resisted suggestion; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: Did you also note times or examples of Brendan, initially, resisted, but later changed, based upon questioning?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: So both occurred on that video; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes, sir.
MR. FREMGEN: Is this an example of that shift or yield that you were discussing in regards to the Gudjonsson Suscept -- Suggestibility Scale?
ROBERT H. GORDON: The Gudjonsson shift and suggestive shift, in, excuse me, response to yield are similar to which -- that which was found in the, uh, in -- in -- in interviewer interrogation, depending on what you choose to call it.
MR. FREMGEN: When you did review the school records, you reviewed those after your, uh, initial opinion; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: That's right.
MR. FREMGEN: Did you note anything in the records that indicated that the school had ever tested Brendan for his level of -- or whether there was a lack of suggestibility?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I didn't note that that was done.
MR. FREMGEN: In your psych -- in your experience, is that an -- uh, normal for schools to make determinations of suggestibility or lack of suggestibility?
MR. FREMGEN: So it wasn't unusual not to see that in the records; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Absolutely.
MR. FREMGEN: In the, uh, actual example, the Gudjonsson Suggestibility, uh, test that you performed on Brendan, and I believe that Mr. Kratz pointed out and had you read portions of, um, you indicated that you had changed the word "pound" to "dollar"; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: Essentially, changing the English monetary system, den -- denoting money, to what -- the American -- the Americanized monetary dollar; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: Was that -- in reviewing the test, itself, did that affect results of yield or shift? Changing that one word?
ROBERT H. GORDON: No, because no questions were based on pound versus dollar.
MR. FREMGEN: On cross-examination, you indicated that shift and yield is not necessarily indicative of whether someone answers true or false; is that correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: That's correct.
MR. FREMGEN: On -- Mr. Kratz asked you a few follow-up questions, and questioned you on the significance of Brendan's shifting to a true answer based on mild pressures; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: That's correct.
MR. FREMGEN: What significance does that have, based -- in regards to your opinion on, uh, susceptibility to suggestion?
ROBERT H. GORDON: None.
MR. FREMGEN: Is the test -- the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale test -- designed to determine if the answers are true or false?
MR. FREMGEN: What is the -- the design of the test?
ROBERT H. GORDON: It's designed to assess whether a person is suggestible. Interrogative suggestibility, to use the entire word.
MR. FREMGEN: So, if someone would shift from a true answer to a false answer, would -- well, what indicate -- how -- what, uh, impact would that have on your opinion?
ROBERT H. GORDON: It would simply show that they shift their answers in response to pressure or criticism of their prior response, and would show that they are susceptible to change if they repeatedly did that.
MR. FREMGEN: Is that the point of the test?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes, sir.
MR. FREMGEN: One point that, uh -- during questioning on cross, Mr. Kratz asked, or commented, that Brendan had shifted or changed his answer when you, quote, his psychologist, asked him; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: He shifted his answer when I didn't -- I didn't ask him -- I -- I told him that I wanted him to do better and --
MR. FREMGEN: Doctor, actually, my question is, simply, he shifted -- the question was asked on cross whether -- Mr. Kratz asked you, did he shift or did he change -- excuse me, not shift. Did he change his answer to you, his psychologist?
ROBERT H. GORDON: He changed it to me, psychologist, as respon -- in response to what I said to him. True.
MR. FREMGEN: This is when you were you there meeting with Brendan; correct?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Correct.
MR. FREMGEN: And you observed the March 1, 2006, video?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: At times, do you recall, if you do recall, examples of when the officers referred to him as "buddy?"
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: Touched his knee?
ROBERT H. GORDON: Yes.
MR. FREMGEN: Essentially, befriending themselves with Brendan?
ROBERT H. GORDON: On some occasions.
MR. FREMGEN: And do you note -- did you note, again, similar changes in answers to these officers who were befriending him?
ROBERT H. GORDON: True.
MR. FREMGEN: Nothing else, Judge.
THE COURT: Any recross?
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY KRATZ:
MR. KRATZ: Just one -- one question, Dr. Gordon. Mr. Fremgen asked you about yield and shift, and gave you an example of Brendan being questioned by officers, um, and then changing his answer. If that was an example of what, uh, Mr. Fremgen called yield and shift. Do you remember that question?
ROBERT H. GORDON: I do.
MR. KRATZ: Isn't that also an example of an interrogative process where a suspect denies involvement in a crime, is confronted with evidence against him, and then admits to the crime? It's just as consistent with that, isn't it?
ROBERT H. GORDON: It's consistent with getting a confession.
MR. KRATZ: All right. That's all I've got of Dr. Gordon. Thank you, very much, again.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.
MR. FREMGEN: Judge, I would move Exhibits, with the same conditions as we've placed before, 226, 227, 229 and 230 and 231.
THE COURT: Any objection to that?
MR. KRATZ: I may have a objection to later use, but to complete the record, I have no objection, Judge. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fremgen, any additional witnesses?
MR. FREMGEN: No, Judge.
THE COURT: Uh, I think we now have some matters to -- to take up. I'm going to excuse the jury for a few moments.