Pittsburgh, PA – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously upheld a death penalty verdict for the rampage killer whose psychiatric history and examination at trial was central to his conviction and sentence. Richard Baumhammers had been arrested on April 28, 2000 following a crime spree that left five dead and another paralyzed from the neck down. Baumhammers, whose victims were all members of different ethnic groups, raised an insanity defense.
The appeal targeted the examination of forensic psychiatrist and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, Dr. Michael Welner. Dr. Welner had reviewed records and interviewed Mr. Baumhammers for fifteen hours before submitting an 89 page report to Judge Jeffrey Manning before trial. The findings drew in part from interviews with collateral witnesses, and Dr. Welner’s later testimony referenced discussions with Baumhammers’ ex-girfriend, accountant, psychologist, and former classmates, among others. Hearsay evidence from these witnesses drew challenge on appeal from the defense, which argued that this evidence should be classified as “testimonial hearsay,” and that hearsay to police officers is inadmissible under a recent higher court ruling unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the out of court declarant.
Justice Seamus McCaffery authored the majority opinion, which held that defense was not entitled to retroactive restrictions on Dr. Welner’s testimony given the record of the case. Moreover, wrote the Court, Dr. Welner’s testimony on hearsay was distinct from the “testimonial hearsay” of witnesses speaking to police officers.
“Collateral history gathering is an essential part of the forensic examination,” commented Dr. Welner in reaction. “In an adversarial proceeding, where the defendant examinee has so much incentive not to disclose, courts should be pushing psychiatric examiners to interview collateral sources of input to add reliability and confidence to conclusions. Interviewing and history gathering are essential to psychiatry’s role and skill, and we applaud any court that promotes best practices. Efforts to restrict collateral interviewing as hearsay or to limit its admissibility perpetuate shallow work and soft science. I strongly encourage courts to protect the admissibility of source interview evidence by psychiatrists. In Baumhammers, these sources aided my understanding and I am grateful for what I learned from them,” noted Dr. Welner.
