This may have already been posted, if so, I apologize. It seems that Juan will have no problem dismantling this sur rebuttal witness. Buh Bye to another hired gun ....... Another One Bites The Dust.
In this case, Dr. Geffner was impeached.
NENNO v. STATE
The question about appellant's statement was not designed to show the truth of the statement contained in the document but to impeach Dr. Geffner by attacking the basis for his opinion. The State wanted to undermine Dr. Geffner's opinion by showing that he relied upon specific statements made by appellant to formulate that opinion despite other information (upon which he also claims to have relied) that showed appellant telling a different story.
He testified for the defendant (Nenno) in this trial, and said he was in some kind of fog and couldn't remember certain things.
More on Dr. Geffner:
In a Texas case; Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Circuit 1992) the court found that Dr. Geffners affidavit lacked credibility, in part because it was based on hearsay information supplied by the defendants attorney with no independent verification.
The court also excluded the Dr.s testimony in Hawaii v. French, 129 P.3d 581 (Hawaii 2006) involving allegations of child sexual abuse.
In State v. Supulvado, 655 So.2d 623 (La. App. 1995) the court limited most of his testimony as he relied mostly on the information supplied by the defendant and he testified about effects of brain damage on emotional functioning though he is not a medical doctor.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.
22 The state trial court found that Dr. Geffners affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clarks conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clarks childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clarks attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffners affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue.
