7.Julie Harper — Direct (Part 1)
527 lines(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. OWENS: I tried to call her again unsuccessfully, but that last -- you had told me 1:30. Tt's still 1:28.
THE COURT: I know, I know.
MR. OWENS: But I texted Dr. Harper, The Court wants you here at 12A to testify at 1:30. That was sent at 1:07.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. OWENS: And I sent just now, Dr. Harper, the judge is ready for you to testify now, so come to Courtroom 12A, please. And then, Received, it is a little walk, is what she said.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. OWENS: It is a little walk, so she's walking across --
THE COURT: All right. She's walking over now.
MR. OWENS: Can we take a short break?
THE COURT: It's either that or we're going to let them sit here in silence.
MR. OWENS: I say we give them a break.
THE COURT: And that's awkward for everybody. So I'll just tell them we're waiting on a witness. As soon as she gets here, we need to be ready to rock and roll.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury, a witness is running a couple minutes late. I think they may be stuck in the security line downstairs, so we're just going to be in short recess for them to join us this afternoon.
Similar instruction I've given you. Please do not conduct any independent investigation or research regarding the person, places, things, or charge involved, and do not have any discussions amongst yourselves or anyone else, and we will bring you back in as soon as that witness arrives. Thank you again for your patience.
(Jury exited.)
THE COURT: You-all can be seated. Thank you.
We'll be off the record until Dr. Harper arrives.
(Brief recess from 1:31 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.)
THE COURT: We are back on the record. Case No. 2020-CF-2603, State of Florida vs. Sarah Boone.
State?
MR. JAY: Judge, before we began trial, I had indicated that, in the past, historically in these types of cases, there are problems with cameras showing attorneys' laptops and it's been brought to my attention that that is going on again. And I'm asking the Court to order whoever it is who has a camera, whether it be a phone or the Court TV pool camera, that they not do that.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Members of the gallery, good afternoon, and the TV crews as well. The information that's contained on both parties' laptops, be it the defense or the State, is protected by work product and attorney-client privilege. It's not something that's viewable, it's not something that should be disseminated, and not something that can be looked at unless there is a knowing and intelligent waiver that that stuff is going to be put out to the public for consumption. So I'm going to ask you as best as possible not to view, take pictures of, or look at any of the laptops, be it the defense's laptops or the State's laptops, to avoid that.
With regard to the camera, if we can, when zooming in on the either the defense counsel's table or the State's counsel's table, if we could try to avoid their laptops, I would greatly appreciate you, sir.
THE COURT: And the podium. Thank you.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: All right. We are back on the record. Case No. 2020-CF-2603, State of Florida vs. Sarah Boone.
State, appearances for the record.
MR. CACCIATORE: Dave Cacciatore on behalf of the State.
THE COURT: Defense?
MR. OWENS: James Owens on behalf of Ms. Boone.
MR. HENDERSON: Tony Henderson for Ms. Boone.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Boone is standing at counsel's table, wearing a dark gray suit and maroon blouse.
Let's go ahead and bring in our jury as Dr. Harper is here.
COURT STAFF: Jury entering.
(Jury entered.)
THE COURT: State, do you recognize our jury?
MR. CACCIATORE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Defense, do you recognize our jury?
MR. OWENS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you-all. You can be seated.
Again, members of the jury, if you could, just raise those hands, confirm you've complied with the Court's instructions. Record will reflect all hands have been raised.
All right. Defense, at this time, you may call your next witness.
MR. OWENS: We'd call Dr. Julie Harper.
DR. JULIE HARPER
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
JULIE HARPER: I do.
THE COURT: Doctor, good afternoon. Could you state and spell your name for the record for us?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. Dr. Julie Harper, H-a-r-p-e-r.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Counselor, you may inquire.
MR. OWENS: Thank you, Judge.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: Good afternoon.
JULIE HARPER: Good afternoon.
MR. OWENS: I think you've already stated your name, but just introduce yourself to the jury.
JULIE HARPER: My name is Dr. Julie Harper, and I'm a licensed psychologist.
MR. OWENS: Would you tell the jury your educational background.
JULIE HARPER: I have an undergraduate degree from Oberlin College in biopsychology. I have a master's degree from the University of Denver. I went on from my master's degree to earn a psychological doctorate. That's called a Psy.D. That was also from University of Denver.
In completing that education, I specialized in psychological assessment, which means I had extra coursework in that area of learning to administer psychological tests to other people. I completed an AP-approved internship at Washington State University, which means that I was matched, and that was my site to practice being a psychologist for a full year, and that was between 1999 and 2000. And following that, I turned in my dissertation, which was in the passing of power in couples' relationships. I then graduated and started my post-doc work in Pullman, Washington.
As part of becoming a psychologist, you have to have over 1,500 to 2,000 hours of supervised work as a psychologist. The person that supervised me was a forensic psychologist. So during that post-doc time, that was my introduction to forensic work while I worked at a community mental health center.
MR. OWENS: Dr. Harper, how long have you been licensed?
JULIE HARPER: I was first licensed in Washington State in 2002, so 22 years.
MR. OWENS: All right. What type of positions have you held as a psychologist?
JULIE HARPER: Well, I was rehired at my internship site, so I worked at Washington State University, College of Counseling Center. I also worked two times at a community mental health center. The first time was in Pullman, Washington, and that was during the period of time where I was getting my post-doc hours completed, and then I stayed on after licensure.
I also worked in Florida. When I came to Florida in 2005, I took a position in the Fort Walton Beach area at Bridgeway Center, which is the community mental health center. And while working there, I completed a variety of psychological assessments. I was directing the testing program.
I also began working doing the Department of Juvenile Justice contract work for evaluating adolescents that had gotten into legal trouble and needed an assessment for consideration of program placement. I worked in that community mental health setting doing clinical assessments and the DJJ contract and Social Security evaluations and continued that until about 2010.
In 2010, I opened my own private practice, which is Northwest Florida Psychological Services. And in the beginning of the practice, it was a combined clinical and forensic practice, meaning that I spent a majority of time doing psychological assessments to answer questions from physicians about things like ADHD, depression, to make treatment recommendations. I had therapy patients and I also did, again, Social Security disability evaluations, so numerous kinds of assessments. And then over time, I began doing more and more forensic work, including receiving appointments from judges to do competency to stand trial evaluations, sanity at the time of the offense evaluations for Circuit One in Florida. And I continued to do the Department of Juvenile Justice contract briefly, but then that came up for bid and I discontinued that contract.
What I did is I slowly reduced my clinical practice, because when you do forensic psychology, it means you have to travel. Your individuals that you're seeing are not usually out in the community. A lot of times you have to see them in jail. So it's hard to maintain a therapy practice, and I scaled that back over time. Eventually my practice became entirely forensic.
And then in 2017, I took a job with the State of Georgia to be an evaluator full-time. I was working doing competency to stand trial and sanity at the time of the offense evaluations and then assisting with risk assessments in the in-patient setting. I did that until 2021.
At that time, my private practice was just -- it quieted down, of course, from COVID and I was not in full-time practice, so I wished to return to full-time practice with my own company, and I did that in May of 2021. And since then, obviously the courts are busy again, we're all recovering from the COVID era and back to full-time practice.
MR. OWENS: Now, you live -- where do you live?
JULIE HARPER: I live in Okaloosa County, and that is in the Panhandle of Florida.
MR. OWENS: And is that where your practice is currently?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: All right. Is it fair to say you travel the state to do assessments or evaluations?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct. I travel to a lot of cities throughout Florida, up far south as, like, Miami, and then, of course, working in --
MR. OWENS: And is it fair to say that you've testified in various counties throughout the state?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: All right. And I know that yesterday you were set to testify in Bay County, Panama City?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct. I was testifying yesterday ina death penalty case in Bay County.
MR. OWENS: All right. And when you finished, you drove here?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I did.
MR. OWENS: My understanding is you got here after midnight?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Okay. What other counties have you testified in?
JULIE HARPER: Well, I've testified here, in Orange County, in Miami-Dade, in Duval -- it might be hard for me to list everywhere -- Alachua, Escambia, Santa Rosa County, Walton County, Bay County, Washington.
MR. OWENS: So just so the jury understands, the nature and practice is you have to travel throughout the state?
JULIE HARPER: Well, I do work in cases where the person is at risk of, you know, succumbing to the death penalty and so those cases require repeated evaluations in different vicinities, and so I have been, you know, traveling to work on murder cases. There are psychologists, I suppose, that do forensic work that might just confine their work to one circuit or state, but I actually broadly travel.
MR. OWENS: Okay. You said that your practice is now entirely forensic? Is that what you said?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: And you've testified about what kind of forensic work you do?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. So as a forensic psychologist, sometimes I am tasked with testifying about something very specific. So, for instance, a person's ability to stand trial, if they're knowledgeable and can go forward with their trial process. I've testified about a person's sanity at the time of the offense, meaning if they had a mental health condition that met the statute as to not being sane at the time of the offense. I've testified in sentencing hearings. I've been an expert witness for Department of Children and Families. I've testified in vocational rehabilitation hearings as their expert in what's called social investigation. That's what they used to call custody evaluations. So in numerous capacities.
MR. OWENS: And would it be fair to say that a lot of times you're appointed by the Court to provide the service that you provide and you're paid by the State?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: What percentage of your work is where you're paid by the government to do the work?
JULIE HARPER: I would say that the majority of my work comes through with that court-appointed funding. Percentage-wise, probably about 90 percent.
MR. OWENS: Okay. And I realize you testify on occasion by the State, but majority of your time, 90 percent, 95 percent of the time you testify on the behalf of the defense?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. The evaluation's complete and either side can call me for testimony, and majority of the time I'm called by defense.
MR. OWENS: Okay. And so you make a living by traveling the state and, generally, the court system -- I think they call it JAC -- pays your fees?
JULIE HARPER: So I make a living by performing work as a forensic psychologist evaluating individuals most of the time that are incarcerated and in prison or a jail setting, providing consultation to attorneys who might just have questions that would, you know, need a psychological expert to explain something to them. I also do fitness for duty evaluations for law enforcement, pre-employment evaluations for law enforcement and firefighters. So depending on the work that's needed, I do those.
MR. OWENS: Doctor, how is a forensic psychological evaluation different than a regular psychological evaluation? Can you tell the jury?
JULIE HARPER: Sure.
So if any of us went into a psychologist's office and had an evaluation done, it would be most likely for treatment. So things like, if you qualify for surgery or you're going to have treatment, maybe you've got a condition that you want therapy for, a psychological assessment is very help in identifying a diagnosis and then setting a course for treatment.
A forensic psychological evaluation has many of the same procedures, but the aim is really different. The aim would be to answer some kind of legal question that is posed. So as an expert, I might be in a position to provide some education or experience, show descriptions of something that a person might be suffering from to people that are going to make a decision. So, for instance, if it's a competency evaluation, I would educate the fact-finder -- in that case, it would be a judge -- about what is wrong with the person or if they had any deficits at all or if they were competent to proceed.
In a situation like this, a forensic psychological evaluation might be geared more to identifying, again, if there is a mental health condition present in the defendant I'm evaluating and then to provide a jury with education about what I found in my evaluation.
MR. OWENS: How many forensic psychological -- how many forensic psychological evaluations have you conducted? Estimate?
JULIE HARPER: So just as an estimate, it's clearly more than 4,000. I've been doing forensic psychological evaluations as far back as 2007.
MR. OWENS: Have you been qualified as an expert to testify in [sic] forensic psychologist in court?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: As a forensic psychologist?
JULIE HARPER: I have.
MR. OWENS: And you said you've testified for the prosecution?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: And you've testified for the defense?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Is there any difference in the work that you do depending on who hires you, which side?
JULIE HARPER: Absolutely not. A forensic psychological evaluation is an objective assessment of what's going on with the person, so you should be performing the same kinds of procedures. In doing the evaluation, it should not matter who has retained you. What you're trying to do is answer a question.
MR. OWENS: Okay. Are there times when you actually do an evaluation and assess an individual, but then you're not actually called to testify?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. Many times that's the case. You will provide your feedback to the attorney and then it's up to the attorney to decide if, you know, there's anything in there that would be useful to them; or if they're pursuing a certain kind of information for the Court, they would choose to call you for testimony.
MR. OWENS: Dr. Harper, do you recognize Sarah Boone at the defense table with Tony Henderson?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. OWENS: When did you first get involved with Ms. Boone?
JULIE HARPER: It would have been in around June of 2020, was the first I heard of her case.
MR. OWENS: And what were you asked to do?
JULIE HARPER: A comprehensive psychological evaluation of Ms. Boone.
MR. OWENS: And did you do that in Ms. Boone's case?
JULIE HARPER: I did.
MR. OWENS: Okay. Were you given materials to review?
JULIE HARPER: I was.
MR. OWENS: Is that standard operating procedure?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: You assess the client individually one-on-one and then there are collateral evidence or material that you also consider?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Can you tell the jury about that?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
So in forensic work, there are a variety of documents that are usually available in assessing a defendant. In this case for criminal court, you would see things like witness statements, there might be body-cam footage, or just more information about the offense itself. Sometimes there's an interrogation video. So you would get the legal description of the offense and the things that have occurred. I also will often get educational records of a person, mental health records, hospital records, things of that nature that would describe their biopsychosocial history to me.
MR. OWENS: And you were given materials as it relates to Sarah Boone to review?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I have.
MR. OWENS: How many times did you meet with Sarah Boone?
JULIE HARPER: So nine times.
MR. OWENS: All right. Can you tell the jury what you did as part of your evaluation of Sarah Boone?
JULIE HARPER: Well, we had a clinical forensic interview in which I reviewed her background history, so her early childhood. I also assessed her with assessments, meaning I administered three psychological tests to her. I reviewed her prior mental health records, her interrogation video, some prior information about her legal history. So she had been previously arrested. I reviewed that as well. We had an opportunity to review the transcript of her interrogation video. So there were a variety of things that would be considered what I did with her.
MR. OWENS: Okay. So you considered some medical records?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: And did you also consider some records from Jorge Torres' records?
JULIE HARPER: I did see his hospital records.
MR. OWENS: Now, do you consider, in doing an assessment and forming any opinions, an individual like Ms. Boone's upbringing in terms of where they grew up and what their family environment was like?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. That's part of gathering their background history, so biopsychosocial information.
MR. OWENS: And did you consider Ms. Boone's upbringing in forming any opinions?
JULIE HARPER: I did.
MR. OWENS: Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. So of her history, I found it pertinent that she was raised with --
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Response?
MR. OWENS: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: She can't be a --
THE COURT: -- gateway to inadmissible hearsay.
MR. OWENS: In terms of --
THE COURT: Anything that Ms. Boone said to her. The question pertains to --
MR. OWENS: In terms of, that her father passed away when she was in high school?
THE COURT: And if she's going to be eliciting statements that were provided by the defendant to her, it is inadmissible hearsay.
MR. OWENS: What about materials that she may have been provided in writing? What about that, records and whatnot?
THE COURT: That's not pending before me right now. Right now, my understanding is that she's going to be testifying to specific statements that Ms. Boone has made, and 90.704 prohibits that. So the objection is sustained.
You can revisit it another way, but the question as is phrased right now is --
MR. OWENS: I don't know how, but I'll try.
THE COURT: Okay.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: Would you have considered as part of her family background whether or not some of her family members had passed away early in her life?
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: Do you consider the entire family background and history, without going into the details of what she said or what you learned from looking at records?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: I'm sorry?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Okay. And did you consider her relationship with her mother as part of her psychological development?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Now, do you believe that Sarah Boone does have some narcissistic traits?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. OWENS: She doesn't qualify or meet the criteria for that diagnosis, does she?
JULIE HARPER: I did not diagnose her with that.
MR. OWENS: All right. Can you elaborate on or explain how you feel that Sarah Boone does have some narcissistic traits?
JULIE HARPER: Well, in meeting with her as part of the evaluation, the narcissistic traits that I identified would have to do with, as she described, being a straight A student. She reiterated about her abilities, and I felt that that was evidence that she had low self-esteem and her coping mechanism was to identify what made her stand out, and that would be consistent with a narcissistic trait.
MR. OWENS: Now, I know there's been reference in this case to a manual that all psychologists, all psychiatrists refer to. Do you have that manual with you?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. OWENS: And what is the name of that manual?
JULIE HARPER: It is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Text Revision. So it's the DSM-5, Text Revision.
MR. OWENS: Now, Dr. Brannon testified earlier today, and there was some evidence relating to, when you suffer from narcissism, there's a sense of grandiosity, but is that -- from this manual, in your studies, in your experience, where they -- where they require excessive admiration and whatnot, that there is a reason for that?
JULIE HARPER: If I'm understanding your question, there's a criterion in narcissistic personality disorder related to that.
MR. OWENS: What I'm getting to is, many times you may have these narcissistic traits, but really you suffer from very low self-esteem?
JULIE HARPER: That's the underpinning of that criterion.
MR. OWENS: Would you explain that to the jury.
JULIE HARPER: If I'm allowed to reference --
MR. OWENS: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: -- the DSM, then I can explain it best.
MR. OWENS: Just don't read from it. Just if you need to review -- if you need to read a paragraph and then explain it to the jury.
JULIE HARPER: So based on the description in the DSM, if a person's self-esteem is very fragile and they have low self-esteem, they may require more outside admiration or even appear more grandiose in their abilities because at root they don't feel secure and confident and so it's what we would call a defense. And so that criterion is actually a way that a person tries to make themselves feel better.
MR. OWENS: All right. Anything else you want to say about that issue?
JULIE HARPER: Well, you asked me about why I didn't diagnose narcissistic personality disorder. And, again, from the DSM --
MR. OWENS: Are there criterion?
JULIE HARPER: There are criterion for each disorder.
MR. OWENS: And so you -- when you're assessing someone, they have to meet all those criteria for you to form that opinion that they actually suffer from that disorder?
JULIE HARPER: Well, the first, I guess, issue is, do they have the criterion that are listed? And then the second would be, is there a different mental health disorder that would better explain the criterion that you're seeing?
The criterion within the DSM overlap considerably across disorders and so there are some helpful guidelines within the DSM to remind you of that, that you may have what's called differential diagnosis. So if you're considering one thing, that you also are directed to look at other things. So that happened in this case, in this instance, the DSM guided me to also look at other things.
MR. OWENS: Okay. But just for purposes -- to make it clear, you did not diagnose her with narcissism, that disorder?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct, because the DSM's description guided me that that would not be an appropriate diagnosis.
MR. OWENS: Why did you not diagnose Ms. Boone with a personality disorder?
JULIE HARPER: Well, first of all, it has to be a pervasive pattern of distorted relational abilities. So, basically, if she is demonstrating in a variety of settings that she has these symptoms. And then, secondarily, the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is listed. When you're considering personality disorders, the DSM guides you that, if there are personality changes that are associated with the exposure to a trauma, then you should consider post-traumatic stress disorder and not a personality disorder.
MR. OWENS: Have you diagnosed her with anything -- and we'll elaborate on that, but through your assessment, have you diagnosed her with anything?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. So she has a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. She has symptoms of anxiety that would be consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder, so that is an anxiety disorder.
MR. OWENS: And you feel like she suffers from post-traumatic stress?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. OWENS: Now, at the time of this incident, this event, we're talking February 23rd of 2020, you were aware that she did not have much family support?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Doctor, why do you administer psychological testing?
JULIE HARPER: Psychological testing allows an objective measurement of what the person's symptoms may be as compared to sort of an average. So if we can see what the average range on the standardized measure would be for any person, if there is an interpretable difference, that gives me clinical information. So it's not just relying on what the person has told me, I've got an objective measurement that I can compare to other people.
And then I also administer psychological testing in a forensic evaluation to help assist me in making sure that the person is intending to put in good effort with me. In some forensic settings, a person may have a reason to present symptoms. Like, if they're in a custody evaluation, for instance, they might have a reason to minimize symptoms or they may exaggerate something else, and so assessments as to the person's response to you and if they're validly participating are important.
MR. OWENS: So there are tests to see if you're faking or malingering or that type of thing?
JULIE HARPER: Right. And so you would call it feigning mental health symptoms when the person is either far exaggerating a symptom they do have or if they're pretending to have a symptom that they do not actually have.
MR. OWENS: Okay. Now, as it relates to Sarah Boone, what type of psychological testing did you administer?
JULIE HARPER: I administered the Inventory of Legal Knowledge, and that is a test that has to do with whether or not she was validly participating regarding her understanding of the legal process. I also administered the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test.
MR. OWENS: Now, explain to the jury what that Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test is.
JULIE HARPER: So that is also a test of feigning to identify if she's validly participating in the evaluation. So if she had endorsed psychological symptoms or psychiatric symptoms, that would be unusual or not typical of a valid psychiatric patient.
MR. OWENS: What were the results of Ms. Boone's test on the Miller Forensic?
JULIE HARPER: She validly participated. There was no indication of any feigning or malingering.
MR. OWENS: And as far as the Inventory of Legal Knowledge case, what were the results?
JULIE HARPER: Again, she was validly participating and she did not even come close to the cutoff that would put her in the range of feigning.
MR. OWENS: Can you tell the jury what the purpose of the Clinician-Administered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale is?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
So that would be considered a very useful assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder. It allows me to interview a person about exposure to a traumatic incident and then identify if there's a change in behavior that has occurred as a result of that exposure to trauma.
MR. OWENS: At the time that you administered that test, did Ms. Boone, in fact, have post-traumatic stress disorder?
JULIE HARPER: Well --
MR. OWENS: Or tell me the results. Just explain --
JULIE HARPER: Yes. So the results would be consistent with a person having post-traumatic stress disorder. I do not diagnose from one test, that wouldn't be appropriate, but it is consistent with the background and the symptoms that I had previously, you know, taken down during my evaluation of her. So the clinical portion, we go through symptoms, that was consistent with the outcome of that test.
MR. OWENS: And would this testing, all the testing, help you determine if Ms. Boone had a change in functioning from before the alleged trauma to after the alleged trauma? And I'm referring to the trauma, we'll talk about what the trauma was, but the trauma was the intimate partner violence?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Okay. But would that testing help to determine if she had a change in functioning from that trauma of the intimate partner violence?
JULIE HARPER: Absolutely.
MR. OWENS: And did you determine that she did suffer from a trauma as a result of intimate partner violence?
JULIE HARPER: That was my conclusion. Yes, that's my opinion.
MR. OWENS: Now, in considering all the available information, you don't just rely on what Ms. Boone tells you --
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. OWENS: -- to reach your decision?
JULIE HARPER: No, I don't. I do interview a person as part of the clinical forensic interview, of course, but I also consider things that are reported, like in the arrest narrative, witness statements, medical records. So there are a variety of sources of information, collecting data points and reviewing those to arrive at a conclusion.
MR. OWENS: So you did review Ms. Boone's previous diagnoses in her history?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Did you consider the previous diagnoses in arriving at your own opinions?
JULIE HARPER: I did, yes.
MR. OWENS: What did Ms. Boone -- what had she been diagnosed with prior to you getting involved?
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Response?
MR. OWENS: I didn't realize that was an objectionable issue that she had been previously diagnosed. I thought that was -- that was going to come out in either -- I thought it came out with Dr. Brannon, but I thought for sure it's going to come out with Dr. Werner in some of the opinions she expressed, because I know we took a deposition and she said -- Dr. Werner said, Yeah, I believe with the previous diagnosis, that she suffers from anxiety or some anxiety disorder. And so I thought the experts -- and, of course, they want to form their own opinions, but they like to rely on the history of other experts.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. OWENS: So that was the reason for asking the question. I didn't know it was inappropriate to ask.
THE COURT: If she's -- if you're asking her to rely and testify specifically to something that's inadmissible as to a prior diagnosis, I mean, 704 prohibits that from happening.
MR. OWENS: I understand.
THE COURT: And that's what I'm taking the State's objection to be.
MR. JAY: Yes. It's appropriate for exploration on cross-examination. Inadmissible evidence can certainly come in if it's relied upon by the expert during cross-examination. And it certainly -- I think an expert, a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist, would testify -- it hasn't happened here yet, but I understand that it could, so I'm not objecting, but this is the sort of thing they usually rely upon. Like, I'm a psychologist, yeah, it's within the course of my practice to normally rely upon other psychologists' diagnoses --
THE COURT: We just can't say what those diagnoses are.
MR. JAY: Unless it's admitted into evidence already, and my understanding is that they -- they're not doing it. A handful of pages, but I still haven't been provided them. But it's going to come out in cross, it's just, I think under 90.704, and according to Professor Ehrhardt, pages 954 and 955 in the 2024 edition, that it's for me to bring out.
THE COURT: I mean, he's correct. It's --
MR. OWENS: I've got the '23 edition, Judge. I don't have the '24.
THE COURT: But there's been no statutory change to the 90.704 statute in some time. Mr. Jay is correct, that on cross-examination, he's allowed to explore the basis of the opinion and go into those out-of-court statements. You, as the proponent of the opinion, unless you can establish the inverse 403 test, it's not admissible.
MR. OWENS: I've been educated.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: But you would agree -- and I think this is a fair question. You would consider prior -- other experts who may have diagnosed her with something?
JULIE HARPER: So I would definitely consider her mental health records, diagnoses previous clinicians may have arrived at at the time when I diagnosed her myself.
MR. OWENS: Okay. And given the assessment that you did with Sarah Boone and considering the totality and the time you spent with her and the other records, did you diagnose Sarah Boone with anything?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. So post-traumatic stress disorder. It's my opinion, at the time of the offense, she had depression and she had an alcohol use disorder.
MR. OWENS: All right. I know we've talked about post-traumatic stress disorder. I don't know if I need to ask you anything further. I think the jury probably understands that. Is there anything else you wanted to add about that disorder?
JULIE HARPER: I'm not sure what the jury has already been told about post-traumatic stress disorder, but in Sarah Boone's case specifically, because of enduring -- she specifically noted the time that she was stabbed with a knife as being an extremely --
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: You have viewed -- have you viewed some exhibits involving her being stabbed?
JULIE HARPER: I think that we have had exhibits in common. I'm not sure what was admitted.
MR. OWENS: Have you seen the physical scar from Sarah Boone being stabbed in the back of the leg?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I have seen her scar.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: Just generally, without getting specific -- I think I've explained post-traumatic stress, but if there's something else you believe the jury needs to know, but it's a sort of trauma that occurs as a result of one or more events?
JULIE HARPER: Post-traumatic stress disorder is the psychological aftereffect of being exposed to a very significant stressor or cumulative stressors that make the person's behavior, thinking, and mood change. And so the change can include things like the person becomes hypervigilant, is easily startled, has trouble thinking, has trouble sleeping, so their body is in a state of agitation. It can also include changes in mood that would include irritability, difficulty relating to others, in that they might be resistent to trust easily. So those are all --
MR. OWENS: And do they have trouble sleeping sometimes?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Sleep deprivation is a real issue?
JULIE HARPER: It's associated with things like nightmares and having trouble sleeping.
MR. OWENS: Now, you mentioned that you had diagnosed her with depression. Can you just give us a general understanding for the jury of depression?
JULIE HARPER: So the persistent sad mood, including feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, having difficulty concentrating, sleep problems, changes in appetite would be typical of depression.
MR. OWENS: All right. And Sarah Boone suffered from that?
JULIE HARPER: Near the time of the offense, yes.
MR. OWENS: All right. Can you explain to the jury alcohol use disorder? That's a fairly new name. That's -- five or six years ago, the manual came up with a different name?
JULIE HARPER: It did, right, and so that would be -- you know, in layman's terms, you might call it alcoholism. It's a tendency to drink too much and then have some kind of consequence in your life as a result of your substance use.
MR. OWENS: And alcoholism can be depending on how much you drink and then how often you drink?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. OWENS: All that -- all that is something that you would consider in diagnosing?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Do many people who suffer from alcohol use disorder -- I don't know how to put this -- are they in denial?
JULIE HARPER: I would say that that is one of the stages of alcohol use disorder and amenability to treatment. So in denial, it's because you do not want to acknowledge that there are consequences from your use, because in doing that, you might have to reduce how much you're using. So to deny means that you feel that you can continue your use without having to change that, so you want to maintain the access to the substance.
MR. OWENS: That you don't have a problem?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. OWENS: What is the difference between traits and a diagnosis?
JULIE HARPER: Well, we all have personalities and so you're going to have coping mechanisms that include personality styles. So, for instance, even though you might not be diagnosable as something, there are times when, if you're upset, hurt, frustrated, in a mood state that's unpleasant, you're going to deal with that by using some kind of coping mechanism. So traits of personality disorders might be present in the way that you deal with inner pain, things that you don't like feeling.
So some people, for instance, if they feel uncomfortable, they may cling too much or become excessively bonded to try to escape a feeling that they don't like, and that might be a dependent personality trait. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a personality disorder because that would have to be pervasive across, like, all the environments. But when stressed or upset or not feeling good, you're going to use some kind of coping mechanism, and that might be one of the criterion, for instance, of the personality order. You would call that a trait.
MR. OWENS: And is it your understanding that this trauma that one suffers from repeat domestic violence can cause one to be considered suffering from the syndrome, we call it battered spouse or battered woman syndrome?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. So the diagnosable condition would be PTSD or post-traumatic stress disorder. That's how a clinician would label the response to trauma. The pattern between partners, the person's coping mechanism because of that trauma, that would be what's considered battered spouse or battered partner syndrome.
MR. OWENS: And you're aware that that concept of being traumatized by the battered spouse syndrome or the post-traumatic stress is relevant to a self-defense case --
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: -- in a criminal context?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I understand that.
MR. OWENS: Could you tell us a little bit about that?
JULIE HARPER: Well, under the battered spouse syndrome, the person would experience a trauma or a situation in which they feared harm. And based on that fear of harm, they would react in a certain way that might not be understandable to other people, so their fear is based on a pattern of behavior between them and their partner. That might not be the case for another set of people.
MR. OWENS: Now, I know that Dr. Lenore Walker is the one who first uncovered this syndrome back in the '70s?
JULIE HARPER: Her research study generated the term. She was interested in why battered women specifically at first, that was what was studied, didn't leave their partner. Because, of course, they're experiencing traumatic events, risks to their life, but then they didn't leave, so she undertook the original research study on that.
MR. OWENS: And just briefly touch on, because I know Dr. Brannon has, this -- there was three stages that Dr. Walker developed for that syndrome?
JULIE HARPER: I think you're referring to phases that a person may go through or the cycle --
MR. OWENS: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: -- of the relationship. That includes the tension building phase in which there is the first instance that tension is building within the partner. There might be a change in tone, a signaling that there is a difference in agitation. The second is the true battering event, so something has happened between the partners that's violent in nature. And then third, there is the honeymoon phase, which is to keep the relationship intact, the batterer would engage in what's, like, called honeymoon behavior. So, like, trying to repair the relationship, apologize, essentially keep the victim from departing from the relationship. So those are three phases.
MR. OWENS: And is it fair to say that psychologically, the abuser -- is alcohol often involved in the abuse?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Okay. And as far as the one, the victim, that's getting abused -- and you say it's a cycle. Is the victim, you know, when they go through that last stage, the honeymoon stage, are they thinking, Okay, it's going to be better?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. The hopefulness in that, trying to believe that the behavior has changed, that they're not going to be abused again. The hopefulness to maintain the relationship, to forgive. That's part of that last stage, phase three, is maintaining a relationship.
MR. OWENS: I don't think I've asked this. Why would someone who has been exposed to intimate partner violence perceive the likelihood of a new violent event about to appear? Why would they perceive the likelihood of that violence differently than, say, a normal person?
JULIE HARPER: Well, it speaks to the pattern. So any relationship will have its own special pattern, that you have things that only your partner knows about you or certain looks that you give that mean something. You learn that over time. So over a period of incidents, basically, the victim begins to perceive cues that would signal impending danger. Those cues could be really subtle, just a change in tone or some small behavior that might not mean much to another person, but it has preceded other violent acts.
So, for instance, if your husband decides that he is not going out that night, he might put on different clothes to stay home, and that could be a Signal. Like, abuse and violence has occurred in his stay-at-home clothes, for instance. That might not mean much to another person because, again, it's specific to that dyad. Those two people know those patterns. So the victim may perceive a small or subtle change in their partner as a cue because they've become hypervigilant. The body knows when it's experienced a threat to itself and it will take note. We record memories differently when we're at risk. So these subtle cues become very well-memorized by somebody who has been victimized.
MR. OWENS: Now, on this -- and battered spouse syndrome is a subset of post-traumatic stress disorder, which you've diagnosed Sarah Boone with. Would those personality changes occur and they persist after an individual has been exposed to this extreme stress, is that when the diagnosis occurs?
JULIE HARPER: The changes would be, as a result of the pattern, the person experiences a change, like, in their sleeping, in their hypervigilance. That's when you can diagnose it. So you can have a trauma or an experience of, you know, a scary incident, but it doesn't mean that you will absolutely have post-traumatic stress disorder. You have to have the reactive symptoms that would suggest that it's present.
MR. OWENS: Okay. In your opinion -- and I know you've gone over this event with Sarah Boone, this February 23rd, 2020, event. Is it your opinion that she was suffering from battered spouse syndrome at the time of that event?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. She had patterns ingrained in her behavior that would be typical of a victim responding to traumatic events in a predictable way, so that would fit that.
MR. OWENS: It's fair to say that because of the intimate partner and the prior violence, that you would have a heightened sense of when danger was about to occur?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Or when a threat was about to occur?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: A threat of danger?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. OWENS: Now, I want to talk about placating the abuser, a victim placating an abuser. Are there predictive cues which an abuser may exhibit to a victim that result in a high level of anxiety arousal in which the battered woman may attempt to reduce through several different means to delay the beatings? Can you explain that?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
So the phase of the relationship that starts with that tension building, that is a jumping-off point potentially. So if you can stop the escalation, you might stay in phase one for a period of time, phase one being that tension building phase and trying to reduce it and not allow it to escalate.
So placating the abuser might include distraction. It could include substance use. It could include a change of scenery. There are a lot of things that a partner will learn to do so that they don't have the escalation into an abusive event, if possible. It doesn't always stop it.
MR. OWENS: Now, in reviewing all of the data, all of the reports, medical records, and whatever reports you considered, videotape that you may have watched, as it relates specifically to Sarah Boone, are her words her power?
JULIE HARPER: Her words, I would say, are the weapon that she has.
MR. OWENS: Explain that to the jury.
JULIE HARPER: In reviewing the available videos that I had to review, you would see that when Ms. Boone is very stressed, when she's experiencing a high level of anxiety, she becomes short in her tone. You can hear that in her voice. There's a strain, sharper words come out. I think that that is the way that she would try to respond to Mr. Torres. You can hear that sharpness in her voice when she's very stressed out.
MR. OWENS: Now, would you agree that victims may exhibit a range of behaviors when they're suffering from intimate partner violence?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Self-isolation?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Suicidal thoughts?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Substance abuse?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: And there are often physical signs of injuries, such as bruising?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Chronic fatigue?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Learned helplessness?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Can you tell -- I know Dr. Brannon spoke on it, but could you tell us a little about that?
JULIE HARPER: So learned helplessness is when you start to form the opinion that nothing is going to make any difference. It comes originally from an animal study in which dogs were shocked, and the research study indicated that even when dogs were given an opportunity to escape the environment in which they were being shocked, if they were shocked enough, they just stopped trying to escape. So even though they had an opportunity to do so, they did not do that. That's called learned helplessness. It's the idea or belief that what your actions are going to do are not going to make a difference, so don't try.
MR. OWENS: What are intrusive memories?
JULIE HARPER: Intrusive memories are an element of post-traumatic stress disorder in which you don't want to be thinking of a traumatic event, but it intrudes on something else you're trying to do. Like, maybe you're folding socks or something like that, just doing something mindless, and that's what takes over your thought process. It's not something that you're trying to think about. We could plan what we're thinking about; or sometimes if you're just having this intrusive experience, that's not what you were intending to think about at all.
MR. OWENS: Is that one of the conditions that someone may suffer when they have this syndrome of battered spouse?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: I know there can be triggers that bring on these memories; am I correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Are there also symptoms of this syndrome where, like in the alcoholism, where you deny or that you have denial that you're in the middle of this cycle?
JULIE HARPER: Well, as part of the relationship, there is an element of pleasure you have early on in your relationship, something that binds you together. So you're remembering that, you're hoping for that. Even though the repeated cycle is going through the phases one, two, and three, you keep hoping for elements of that honeymoon phase, wishing that it was better. So it is like denial. You're imagining the way it used to be. You have a recollection of that person showing you positive behaviors and you're, you know, hoping for that.
I also think it is typical for victims to not reveal to other people that the abuse is going on and that it seems like denial. In other words, your coworkers ask you, like, Are you okay, did something happen to you? You're not likely to disclose that. That looks a lot like denial. It is a denial in public of some of the private issues that you're having in your relationship. And that's because it's embarrassing, it's revealing a loss of control to other people, it's revealing that things aren't perfect. You might even get feedback that you should leave your partner, and that's unwanted because you're already having that, you know, concern in your own mind about it, and so, you know, it seems like denial on the outside to hide it.
MR. OWENS: Would you agree, many people who suffer from this, they're minimizing what is happening to them?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: And they're numbing their emotions to it?
JULIE HARPER: Well, to stay present and keep that relationship, it's very difficult for a lot of people because they're experiencing physical and emotional harm. So they want to numb it because numbing it means that you can keep that relatedness, no matter how bad it's getting.
MR. OWENS: Do some people with this syndrome disassociate?
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. JAY: We're in about three or four things where we're just asking about people in general. My understanding of discovery is that it does not -- none of these apply to the defendant. And if it does, that should probably be the question.
THE COURT: Does dissociation apply to Ms. Boone? Because if I understand correctly, that's what we're talking about.
MR. OWENS: Dissociation is battered women. They develop a defense mechanism of being able to psychologically detach from their body during a traumatic experience.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection to relevance is overruled.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: Do you agree that battered women also develop the defense mechanism of being able to psychologically detach from their body during a traumatic experience?
JULIE HARPER: Some people do experience that.
MR. OWENS: I'm just going to list some of the symptoms that you find in battered spouse women just to see if you agree with these. We talked about intrusive memories and flashbacks of the past traumatic events; you agree with that?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: The severe anxiety and hypervigilance?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: The panic attacks?
JULIE HARPER: That 1S sometimes present. It depends on how the person experiences anxiety, but some do have panic attacks.
MR. OWENS: Very low self-esteem?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Poor body image?
JULIE HARPER: Sometimes.
MR. OWENS: Feeling that they have no control?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Sexual dysfunction?
JULIE HARPER: It can be, particularly if the trauma includes sexualized attacks.
MR. OWENS: Short-term memory problems and confusion?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, that's part of PTSD sometimes.
MR. OWENS: And they can actually have physical health problems from the chronic stress and physical violence?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Fear?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Constant fear?
JULIE HARPER: That 1s correct.
MR. OWENS: Now, the abusive partner, the abuser, part of the abuse would be hitting, kicking, punching, choking, burning, and biting?
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. JAY: Again, we're going into things that aren't in evidence. There's no biting alleged. If he wants to ask hypotheticals about things that are in evidence, then that's acceptable, but, again, we've been down this road for a few minutes now and they're not being asked in the form of a hypothetical and there's no evidence in the case thus far that these, like, body dissociation or anything that she said.
THE COURT: Response?
MR. OWENS: Judge, she's testifying as an expert in that field of post-traumatic stress tied to the subset of battered spouse syndrome, what people will experience, and there's been testimony from Sarah Boone about what all she experienced.
THE COURT: I don't recall biting.
MR. OWENS: I don't think there was any of that either, but I'm asking questions about, generally, what do you look for and what do you find --
THE COURT: The question that was just asked was specific things, kicking, fighting, biting.
MR. OWENS: Yeah, that's a general question. That's not specific to Sarah Boone. I didn't ask if Sarah Boone had been bit, but I know she's been burned, I know she's been choked, I know she's been punched, I know she's been kicked, I know she's been hit.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Jay?
MR. JAY: I just -- these things need to be asked in the form of a hypothetical and they need to be based on facts in evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to find that it's relevant. What's your response to the improper form of the question?
MR. OWENS: I don't know what he means by that. Improper form? I can ask, Are these acts that are committed by the abusive partner that are common to to --
THE COURT: If you want to ask, What are those acts, that may be acceptable.
MR. OWENS: I don't think it's leading for me to ask, Is hitting a common --
THE COURT: I would agree with that. I would agree with that.
MR. OWENS: I'11 break it down.
THE COURT: I'm going to -- I'm going to allow you to reask and revisit that in another way.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, sir.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: I'm asking about common things that occur by the abusive partner towards the victim that create this intimate partner violence or create this syndrome in the woman. Hitting?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. That could be an overt act.
MR. OWENS: Kicking?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Punching?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Choking?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Burning?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Using weapons to hurt you?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: A knife?
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. OWENS: A curtain rod?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Threatening to hurt you, your children, or your pets?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Belittling and humiliating you?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Taking your car keys?
JULIE HARPER: That would be considered a form of control, so yes.
MR. OWENS: Controlling your money?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Control where you go and who you see?
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. OWENS: And who you can talk to?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. OWENS: Force you to have sex when you don't want to?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Stalking you?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Slapping you?
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. OWENS: Do you agree victims that suffer from this abuse experience feelings of anger?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, that can be in some of the phases.
MR. OWENS: Sadness?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Hopelessness?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Worthlessness?
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. OWENS: Intense feelings of fear?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Abusers have a tendency to have low self-esteem themselves?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. OWENS: Abusers.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: The abuser can have low self-esteem themself?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Have a desire for power and control?
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. OWENS: Have a tendency to use alcohol or drugs?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Abusers oftentimes have a temper?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Become jealous easily?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Very possessive?
JULIE HARPER: Can be.
MR. OWENS: The victims can suffer from severe psychological distress?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: Is that what Sarah Boone suffered from?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: May I approach the clerk?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: Dr. Harper, I'm showing you Exhibit 14. It's five photographs.
Did you watch the video of the TV -- the bat and TV incident?
JULIE HARPER: I did.
MR. OWENS: You considered that in your analysis and your diagnosis?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I did.
MR. OWENS: And I'm going to show you some pictures, Exhibit 12. I believe she's testified that this is a curtain rod. Are you familiar with that?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Exhibit 11, are you familiar with this photograph, over here?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Exhibit 10, which is her arm. Are you familiar with that photograph?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Exhibit 9, picture of the bloody knee?
Exhibit 8, picture of her black eye?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I've seen this.
MR. OWENS: Exhibit 7, a picture of her, Sarah's lips and it looks like her eyebrow?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: And this is Composite Exhibit 6, which is of the stab -- the stab to her leg. Are you familiar with those?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: And I don't know if you've seen this. Exhibit 5 is where she spilled soup as a result of his behavior.
JULIE HARPER: I'm not sure if I've seen this photo, but I've seen the medical records.
MR. OWENS: Of that burn?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Exhibit 4 --
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: -- familiar with that?
Looks like Exhibit 3, she was slapped on the thigh?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Exhibit 2, picture of bruising to Ms. Boone?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Did you consider all of those photographs in forming your opinions that you've expressed here today as it relates to Sarah Boone?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, under the substantiation that she has, indeed, experienced past instances of intimate partner violence against her.
MR. OWENS: Is it fair to say that it takes time -- a number of times to visit with someone like this to build trust?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. Traumatized people are slow to disclose information. You have to build a rapport, you have to make sure that they experience you discussing other things without an emotional reaction. They feel easily judged. As we mentioned, have defensive denial, things like that, so you need to build a good rapport in doing an assessment with somebody that's experienced trauma.
MR. OWENS: So a lot of times they're very slow to open up and tell you about the abuse?
JULIE HARPER: That's correct.
MR. OWENS: And they will actually often lie about it?
JULIE HARPER: Deny it, yes. Just say that that's not the issue or they're fine. So oftentimes I'll have an evaluation request come from an attorney who is having difficulty interacting with their client and then it ultimately is a result of trauma.
MR. OWENS: Now, I know that you've viewed everything and I know you've seen her nine times. Is there -- did you feel like you had enough time? Was nine visits enough time for you to feel like you had enough time and information to form the opinions that you've expressed here today and given to this jury?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: That's all the questions I have, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Any cross-examination?