Larissa Schuster Trial, Day 16, 11/13/07
DR. STEPHEN ESTNER/PSCYHOLOGIST
The trial continued Tuesday morning with the defense's psychologist back on the stand. He continued his testimony from Friday. Larissa Schuster walked in the room at 10:09 a.m. She's expected to testify later in the day. Several other witnesses will take the stand before her. Prosecutor Dennis Peterson said he received a motion regarding cross examination of the defendant. Testimony continued at 10:11 a.m. Defense attorney Roger Nuttall asked the judge if he could go back over a few things to clarify. The judge agreed. Nuttall referenced the year 2003. Estner discussed how much he was charged at the time to work on the case. At the time he charged $300 an hour. Now he is charging $150 an hour to testify. The witness is not given authority to spend as much time as he wants. Since 2003 when Nuttall's office hired him, he's given presentations to various agencies including law enforcement and otherwise. He talked about MRIs and brain scans. Estner has made presentations to prosecutors. Summarizing what they talked about on Friday, Nuttall asked what in his records convinced him that Larissa Schuster was in an abnormal emotional and physical state. She was having fluttering in her chest in 2002. In mid-2000 she had palpitations. An EKG was performed to determine if she had an irregular heart beat. Nuttall handed the witness some documents. On June 14, 2001, a scan was performed. Estner said it's a normal cardiogram for the most part, but there is an arithmia. The prosecution objected. Peterson said the evidence has little probative value. The judge allowed the testimony to continue. Nuttall asked if there were other medical symptoms that were significant to show she was in an abnormal mental state? She was given medication, but it ran out. The problems came back after she stopped taking the medicine. Her hair loss was one of the symptoms. Schuster clearly still suffers from hair loss as she sits in court today. Various tests were performed on her. She had a stress-related cardiac condition, was his diagnosis. Medication continued to be prescribed. It's an adrenaline-blocking medication. It's often prescribed to older people to lower their blood pressure. For a middle-aged woman, the medication was designed to slow her heart rate. Mostly men have cardio-vascular disease. For a woman in her early 40s to have these kinds of problems is unusual, the doctor said. Going into 2003, Schuster's psychological health was suffering. Her body was suffering from the amount of stress she was having. 10:23 a.m. She was significantly different. The witness has the health records from the 1990s.
Peterson began his cross examination at 10:24 a.m. He questioned the sources the doctor used. The witness conducted multiple interviews with Larissa Schuster. Estner also reviewed some evidence in the case, including Larissa Schuster's tape recorded interview with police. He primarily focused on medical information relating to the defendant. The witness does competency evaluations. Generally he just sends in his reports. When he does testify, it's typically court-appointed. He doesn't testify for one side or the other. He testifies six to 10 times per year. He's testified for the last 15 years. He testified about once a week when he was dealing with patients in a California state hospital. They were inmates who were about to be released from prison, but were still considered dangerous. Now those cases are sent back to the original counties. He said there's a big difference in wishing something would happen versus actually making it happen. The DSM, diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, is typically used to figure out what people have. The witness coined his own term for Larissa Schuster "passive homicidality." He said it's not a diagnosis, but it's more of a symptom. 10:36 a.m. Estner said he testified in Fresno County in the mid-1990s. He said he is hired more often by defense than the prosecution. Tomorrow he hopes to do a court-appointed exam at Corcoran. Peterson said in the last year, he can recall testifying twice for the prosecution and four times for the defense. The prosecution asked the witness about a case he testified in prior. The defendant's last name was Chavez. The case involved someone making homosexual advances. The witness said he never interviewed Chavez and only reviewed medical records. Regarding Chavez, the witness said he did not want to be restricted. He's generally given a synopsis, and the attorney's theory about what he/she thinks what's going on. It helps him decide if he wants to take the case, or if he thinks the party will hire him. In this case, he wanted to speak to the opposing counsel. He says he tries to stay out of the game between attorneys. The witness wrote a brief report and then a full report for the defense regarding Larissa Schuster's case. The witness had requested the gynecology records regarding a diagnosis of depression. In May of 2003, there was a prescription for Zoloft. The Zoloft was started in 2002. He believes she's still taking the prescription now. The release from Larissa Schuster, one is dated 2006.
Peterson asked the witness, if his form of psychology falls outside of forensics psychiatrists. The witness agreed. Estner said he testified for Nuttall before, where he testified about coughsynchopy. This is where people cough so bad they lose consciousness. There's an obstruction of blood flow. Typically you would not go to a forensic psychologist for an evaluation of this type of condition. Peterson then asked the witness about another case where a defendant was diagnosed as chronic pschitzophrenic. The doctor said he could tell right after speaking to him that he was pschitzophrenic. The defendant was accused of strangling his own mother. This was a Tulare County case. 10:54 a.m. The witness said the prosecutor was mixing things up a bit.
Dennis Peterson began asking the witness about Timothy Schuster's alleged passive aggressiveness. 11:02 a.m. The witness said he did not talk to people close to Timothy Schuster. He said it would be extremely awkward. The prosecutor asked about the doctor's battered person's syndrome diagnosis. 11:03 a.m. "I knew something was up, I wasn't sure what." Peterson showed a two-minute clip from the interview Larissa Schuster had with police. Estner was then asked to explain his diagnosis after seeing the clip.
INFORMATION MAY NOT BE EXACT…
Police: Having his name out on the news will hopefully get him back, and pray for him tonight to come forward.
Larissa: I've been praying for him at the church. I pray for him in the divorce prayer groups, and in divorce group it's odd, it's interesting. One night we were sitting there, and the lady said, here I am a pretty strong personality type person. I'm a business woman. I'm independent. I'm looking at these other women's they're husband's came home and said I'm gone. And they were devastated. She hoped she could inspire them. She hopes she can pray for her husband to get over his hostility. The leader of the group says, that shows growth. When you can pray for the enemy that shows growth. I felt like I was progressing out of this.
Estner said when you watch the video, Larissa Schuster's hands move a lot, while she's talking calmly. It's consistent with his diagnosis. 11:09 a.m. There's no question that she wanted him and her husband to be far apart, but it's not clear that she wished him ill will, but didn't want anything more to do with him. In terms of battered spouse, the tape, he said, showed distance. Peterson asked why it didn't call into question the diagnosis, or the words were insincere. Estner said you can see baseline agitation and still shows a battered spouse.
Nuttall began his redirect at 11:11 a.m. He asked the witness about the clip just being a small amount of the entire interview. In terms of his opinion about Larissa Schuster in relation to her husband, Nutall asked, does this statement taken alone dispel in his mind any opinion that she did or did not harbor hostility toward Timothy Schuster. The witness said, no. He said this particular portion of the interview doesn't change anything for him. In terms of interviewing Larissa Schuster, or looking at the case on behalf of Nuttall, Estner was looking at Timothy Schuster's conduct with other people, but the focus of his inquiry was his conduct toward her, but more importantly her reaction to Timothy Schuster. He said people's perception can be very different from reality. The witness reiterated that he did not have unlimited resources to investigate Timothy Schuster. No one asked him at anytime to blame Timothy Schuster for anything. 11:17 a.m. "I'm very sorry if I ever implied he was anything other than a decent person." Nutall continued to ask the witness questions to clarify testimony the witness provided during cross examination.
Peterson began cross examination again. The witness said no one but he has ever mentioned battered spouse. He said he doesn't even know the legal theory behind Larissa Schuster's case. His feeling is there's emotional abuse that actually caused physical symptoms 11:29 a.m. The psychiatrist said there's a $10,000 cap on what all he can spend in this case. Estner was excused from the stand at 11:30 a.m.
PAUL QUINN, ACCOUNTING EXPERT
The next witness took the stand at 11:42 a.m. Roger Nuttall's assistant Edgar Page conducted the direct examination. Quinn began his testimony by describing his education and experience as an expert witness. He's been retained in more than 40 marital dissolution cases. They almost all involved division of assets. Some of those involved businesses. He has served as a trustee. He identifies the beneficiaries and handle assets. He said in divorce cases, each party gets their own expert typically. He said he's published tax and fraud cases. He prepared a memorandum for the defense in this case last month. His experience regarding divorce documents was utilized. In the memorandum, he was not able to obtain certain records, including Timothy Schuster's pension. There was an annuity that he had, he was not able to get. There was a severance agreement that St. Agnes Hospital was going to pay, but he didn't know if it would hold up. Larissa Schuster had a retirement account with $200,000. She would have received the life insurance and annuity because of Timothy Schuster's death. On insurance policies, primary beneficiaries are named. She was listed as Timothy Schuster's primary beneficiary. Timothy and Larissa Schuster had a combined living trust. They were applied equally to both of them. The witness has a copy of that document. The terms of the living trust, it didn't matter who died first. The assets that didn't go into the living trust, was limited to everything but the retirement plans. Quinn prepared a chart . The chart was received as evidence and displayed for the jurors.
COMMUNITY PROPERTY----RETIREMENT PLANS
I
LIVING TRUST DEED, FEBRUARY 24, 1999
I
FAMILY TRUST, SURVIVOR'S TRUST
I
SUMMARY OF FAMILY TRUST PROVISIONS
1. Annual Income to Survivor's Trust
2. Limited to survivor to 5% or $5,000 of principal, whichever is greater.
3. Provisions show the survivor can have additional access for health, education and maintenance.
4. The Schuster's preference was that the survivor's trust be fully utilized before the family trust could be touched.
As the survivor, Larissa Schuster would have only been able to take a small percentage of his trust. The fourth provision is based on what's economically beneficial. Once Larissa Schuster dies, the Schuster children become the beneficiaries. If the couple divorced, Larissa Schuster would have received half, and that included the retirement plan. In this case, there's been a lot of testimony about CCRL, Larissa Schuster's business. Quinn evaluated documents related to that. Court recessed for the lunch hour.
Testimony continued at 1:37 p.m. Page asked the witness about Larissa Schuster's business. Another person evaluated the business for its value. The witness reviewed that assessment. A document was handed to Quinn. The value of the company in 2002 was $489,000. Mike Smith conducted the valuation. He factors fair market value, good will, etc. Other documents were reviewed related to the business, including ledgers regarding expenses and credit card statements. He also examined an email sent to her attorney, indicating she was not in agreement with the valuation. It was dated April 22, 2003. In the letter she said she was in the process of interviewing another person to evaluate the business. She ended up retaining Scott Dye instead. He also evaluates businesses but does it in a different way. He gives a discount if a key person is involved. A key person is someone who is in charge of the business. Larissa Schuster was considered a key person. Normally the key person discount would decrease the value of the business. The evaluator would consider revenues, owner income, training of staff, how long they've been there. There's value to an ongoing business. The evaluator would also look at the liabilities. During this trial there have been several photos of the lab shown. The equipment in the building would also be considered as assets. They would be assessed at fair market value. Some equipment can also create debt. The report of assets and debts was displayed for the jurors. Quinn explained what the various numbers mean, and how the valuation is made. Timothy Schuster reportedly wanted $1 million for his half of the business. Quinn testified that the business was not worth that amount. Larissa Schuster sold the business on Oct. 1 2003, for $225,000. She didn't sell the lab, but sold all of the items within the lab.
The prosecution began its cross examination at 2:09 p.m. The witness was asked to clarify the Schuster's total assets at the time of Timothy Schuster's death.
The defense began redirect at 2:19 p.m. The witness said he had full access to Larissa Schuster's financial records, but could not get Timothy Schuster's records. He said he had trouble obtaining them from St. Agnes Hospital. He said he tried, but ran out of time. The witness is showing that Larissa Schuster went to great lengths to get a fair assessment of the property, for her, because she believed the property would be divided. If the property was to be divided, the defense believes, she would not have intended to kill Timothy Schuster. The witness left the stand at 2:41 p.m.
SCOTT WONG/FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Scott Wong took the stand at 3:05 p.m. He described his criminology background. He also holds various licenses and other credentials in toxicology. In this particular case, Roger Nuttall confirmed that the witness was contacted to review some documents. He's also an expert on tool marks. Firearms is a subset of that. The courtroom is now full of people. Timothy Schuster's mother and apparently his brother and sister-in-law are in the courtroom. Wong is known as a generalist. In this case, he had the opportunity to review numerous police investigation reports. Among those reports he reviewed the materials specifically associated with an autopsy that was conducted in July 2003, of the remains of Timothy Schuster. In the context of the materials he reviewed, he also looked at the death certificate. He reviewed the notes of the coroner, regarding the determination of the cause of death. He also reviewed the photographs taken by various members of law enforcement of the autopsy and of the recovery of the remains which were apparently inside a barrel. In the context of his experience, he was asked to do an analysis of the autopsy and what was done at that time, in terms of the procedures that were taken by the forensic pathologist working for the coroner. The prosecutor objected. He asked to voire dire the witness' qualifications to testify. Dennis Peterson asked him about his specialty. The witness said if he had to pick a particular area of expertise it would be in the area of toxicology. Peterson asked for an example of tool marks. The witness used the example of a screen door pried open, and the discovery of a screw driver later found connected to the crime scene. He said he's done work on a mutilated body, where a coroner looked for tool marks. Another expert was called in. He's never done work on tool marks related to bone. Peterson asked him if decomposition and acid could play a part on determining tool marks. The witness said those factors could impact his ability to determine tool marks. The judge then asked for a sidebar. The attorneys and judge were behind a closed door for approximately three minutes. Nuttall resumed direct examination. He has qualified in court to testify in various areas of science. He's qualified in blood alcohol analysis, blood stains, crime scene reconstruction, controlled substance, arson. In two cases in particular, there was a common component related to mutilated bodies. In this case, two bones in the forearm were found in the barrel of acid. There were chop type wounds on the lower limbs. Nuttall asked if anyone examined the body for tool marks in the area of the T-10 vertebra. The witness said it didn't appear so. He said it was also not apparent that anyone checked for tool marks on the distinct forearm bones. The witness said that kind of an examination would have been useful to determine what type of tool made that kind of mark. It could have been a saw. There is an expert available in the U.S. who could have made that kind of determination, the witness said. Wong said the investigators lost their window of opportunity to fully collect evidence in this case. He said the crime scene needed to be investigated further. In this case, the witness said he learned how the coroner's office gathered evidence contained in the blue barrel. He explained his understanding of the process. The hazmat team initially determined that the substance was neutral. The group processed the barrel. After they began draining the barrel, they noticed the fumes and suspended the process. Ultimately they ended up tipping over some of the barrel contents. He said they supposedly collected samples along the way. The coroner's office wasn't exactly sure of the weight of the barrel. When they collected the liquid, there was question to the volume of the liquid. It wasn't clear of which pans were used. It seemed haphazard, said the witness. Wong said we'll never know for sure if the top portion of the body was in the barrel or if it was severed. He said there were plenty of other agencies that had experience with similar kinds of circumstances. He believes other groups should have been consulted before trying to conduct the autopsy. He said their method was not the most prudent. The causes of death on the death certificate were chloroform and acid emersion. The witness said those were not necessarily the causes of death. He believes all possibilities were not explored. He said it still remains undetermined. In the autopsy photos there was clothing. If this was concentrated hydrochloric acid, an entire vat, the clothes would not have remained, said the witness. He believes perhaps the liquid in the barrel was not all acid.
Dennis Peterson began his cross examination at 3:49 p.m. He asked about the autopsy. As far as biological material, the prosecutor pointed out the witness has no experience. Since acid was part of this autopsy procedure, Peterson asked if the witness was aware of an experiment involving a cow vertebra that was completely dissolved in acid. Peterson said the bone was examined for tool marks, visually by the coroner. The body was not released to the family for cremation for nine months. During that time it remained at the coroner's office. The witness was asked to look at a photo were the vertebra was visible. Then he was asked to look for a tool mark. The witness said the photo was a little over exposed, and he couldn't really tell if there was a tool mark. Gopal had testified that the spine was actually like a breadstick that was dissolving. It's possible there was no tool marks anyway. Peterson said Wong's testimony was all hypothetical. Peterson said, "We're really getting far field aren't we?" Wong said the examination should have been done. The witness said it does appear the coroner's office did what it could. Dr. Gopal at least considered as a possibility that the upper half of Timothy Schuster's body was cut off. The substance in the barrel was tested, and confirmed as hydrochloric acid. Peterson grabbed the barrel again and asked the witness to imagine the acid poured inside of the barrel, 18 bottles added, and the victim placed head first inside, there wouldn't be much contact with the lower extremities, Wong said, "That is correct."
Nuttall began redirect at 4:03 a.m. The witness said the liquid in the barrel could have been diluted because not even the clothes were destroyed.
Peterson began cross examination at 4:06 a.m. The prosecutor asked if the witness saw the picture of Timothy Schuster's remains in the barrel. He said he only saw a little of that image. Peterson showed a picture to the witness, where he pointed out the clothes and even skin on the lower half of the body, which was at the top of the barrel, were deteriorated.
Nutall began redirect at 4:09 p.m. He asked if there were pictures where one could see the clothes. The witness said he believed so.
The witness left the stand at 4:11 p.m. The jurors were exclused. Judge Wayne Ellison decided to take up a motion made by the defense.
Roger asked that the prosecutor not to illicit information pertaining to statements made to police by James Fagone Larissa Schuster will testify to a chain of events during the relevant time period, from the 9th to the 13th of July. There will be a number of facts testified to by her as to what occurred during that period of time. James Fagone in his confession and testimony, testified to events that occurred during that same period of time which are in contradiction of what Larissa Schuster will testify to. He suggested a hypothetical, at 9 a.m., on July 10th, she was leaving her house, and that is her hypothetical testimony, and Fagone stated that at 9 a.m. on July 10th, Schuster was somewhere else. Peterson might cross examine her by saying, "you say you were at your house at that time, isn't it true that based on what James Fagone said, you were actually at his house." The defense will never be able to confront that assertion. It's left hanging. There could be hundreds of those types of questions that will never be tied up. 4:15 p.m. The judge said, assuming the defense is correct, there's no way to make a limit to these hundreds of possible questions. Nuttall said, all information that was taken from Fagone's confession or testimony, could be excluded. Nuttall said independent sources are acceptable, but if the only source is James Fagone, he asks those types of questions be excluded. An order to an officer to the court holds weight, Nuttall said. The jury will be instructed that questions are not evidence, and with that the motion was denied. Testimony will begin with Larissa Schuster on the stand tomorrow morning.
