The Credible Psychopath

When Gunman Dana Nash was tried in 1962 for killing a Chicago union official, the key witness against him was his nephew, William Triplett, who had helped him commit the murder. Nash knew that a prison psychiatrist had once diagnosed his nephew as "a true psychopath." To impeach Triplett's credibility, Nash asked the trial judge to order a psychiatric examination. The judge refused. After Nash received a sentence of 99 to 150 years, he appealed on the ground, among others, of this alleged error. By definition, he argued, a psychopath is a liar and "unworthy of belief."

Not so, the Illinois Supreme Court has just ruled. The only issue is whether a witness is truthful. To be sure, said the court, the trial judge in the Alger Hiss case set an important precedent by permitting psychiatric testimony impeaching the credibility of Government Witness Whittaker Chambers. But that step is not necessary in all cases. "A psychopath," said the court, "has the capacity to observe, recollect and communicate, and is therefore a competent witness." If he is a liar, witnesses can testify that he has "a bad reputation for truth and veracity." After that, it is up to the jury to decide whether he actually lied on the witness stand or not.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.