8.Julie Harper — Cross/Redirect (Part 2)
752 linesCROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. JAY:
JULIE HARPER: Good afternoon.
MR. JAY: So you've done some evaluation work on battered spouse syndrome for the prosecution in the past?
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: I have been called to testify about that.
MR. JAY: So you understand, when the government obtains a court order for their expert to come in and do an evaluation, it's for one evaluation, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I believe that you're saying that the government can retain their own expert, yes.
MR. JAY: No. What I'm talking about is, you just went through that you had nine visits with Ms. Boone, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I did, yes.
MR. JAY: And that was over the course of eight different days, because two of those visits were morning and afternoon sessions, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And what we are trying to help you have the jury understand is that, when you get hired by the government and the Court gives you an order to go evaluate somebody, you get one crack at the apple. Is that your understanding from your past work working for the government?
JULIE HARPER: No, that is not always correct. There are many instances in competency evaluations where evaluators would request additional visits if they cannot determine their opinion on the first visit.
MR. JAY: All right. Specifically, when it comes to an affirmative defense, such as battered spouse evidence and insanity, what is your understanding and your expertise?
JULIE HARPER: What is my understanding of the issue?
MR. OWENS: Judge, the question --
THE COURT: Legal objection?
MR. OWENS: Objection.
THE COURT: Legal grounds?
MR. OWENS: He asked the question about battered spouse, insanity --
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: What are the legal grounds of the objection?
MR. OWENS: It's a compound question. He asked -- the question was asked relating to sanity and battered spouse syndrome, and I think that should be split up.
THE COURT: Response, if any?
MR. JAY: Perhaps I used the wrong disjunctive "or," because they're both affirmative defenses. I'll move on.
THE COURT: You can rephrase it. The objection is sustained for now.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: When it comes to an affirmative defense, such as battered spouse syndrome being used for self-defense or -- not "and" -- insanity, it requires a court order for the State to have an evaluator go, right?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Well, you would evaluate if the person is, indeed, suffering from a behavioral response, like a mental disorder. So, first of all, has the person demonstrated that they've got a behavioral change, and is it in response to a violent act? Do they perceive threat where they've been exposed in the past? So a pattern of violence that has repeated.
MR. JAY: Does control over another person in an intimate relationship have anything to do with it?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, it can.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And by control, I mean controlling who you go see, who you hang out with, so on and so forth?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes, it can.
MR. JAY: So that's what I'm asking. Like, in the DSM-5-TR, I believe you pulled up narcissistic personality disorder?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And so when you do that, it pulls up and it says there's nine criteria, and five of those criteria must be met to make a diagnosis for narcissistic personality disorder, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: No, it's not a diagnosis. You wouldn't use it as a diagnosis.
MR. JAY: And what I'm asking is, even though we haven't written it down in The Diagnostic Statistical Manual -- and I mean the like The Ohio State University or something -- is it written down anywhere? Can one psychologist or psychiatrist rely upon a recipe or a list of criteria that everyone else would be using in your field as well?
JULIE HARPER: There is no standardized approach you must follow. In other words, sometimes if we have a statute, for instance, it would often affect what we must investigate. It doesn't exist like that. There is no statute directing it.
MR. JAY: And there's nothing written down anywhere that says, Of these nine criteria, these things must exist, controlling your partner, isolating your partner, beating your partner, so on and so forth, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: All right. Now, this kind of abuse can come in the form of emotional or mental abuse, outside completely of physical or sexual abuse, correct?
JULIE HARPER: So that is a component. You can have extreme mental abuse occur of a person, yes.
MR. JAY: Okay. And if that person responds to that environmental stimuli of whatever it is the partner is Saying or doing to them, they may internally view that as traumatic?
JULIE HARPER: It could.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: It's entirely possible for two people to be ina three-and-a-half-year relationship that has physical violence and neither one of them feel traumatized by that; is that correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right. If they have enough supportive or positive experiences that would negate that ratio, soa positive to negative, they may feel okay.
MR. JAY: And a man can be subjected to this sort of trauma, whether it be physical, emotional, or sexual, by an intimate partner as well, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: But trauma is in the eye of the beholder; is that fair? Whether a negative experience traumatizes somebody is going be in the eye of the person who experienced that stimuli, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I only partially agree with you. It's a complicated answer, because some of the manifestations of trauma are behavioral. So, for instance, when I evaluate veterans who have returned and they may not know that they've been traumatized, their body -- their bodily responses that include, like, difficulty concentrating, they can't sleep, they're hypervigilant. The PTSD diagnosis encompasses outward manifestations. So even though they don't acknowledge trauma, you can still identify it as a clinician.
MR. JAY: But, still, somebody like a homicide detective or a homicide prosecutor can go to scenes where there are dead bodies, go to the autopsies where there are dead bodies, and not walk away with any trauma, correct, whereas, somebody else might?
JULIE HARPER: Right. The environmental, I guess, cues for that person -- and, also, working with law enforcement, they become seasoned to micro traumas, so the first -- almost every police officer can remember their first dead body they've seen, so it's in their memory. And then they become accustomed to seeing gruesome scenes. They have an increased tolerance over time because it's part of their job. It may not be part of their intimate relationship that they have with someone else.
MR. JAY: Now, you brought up veterans. Is something common with PTSD with veterans something like that firecrackers may set them off because it reminds them of acts of war?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: You're not suggesting to the jury today that if somebody who returns with PTSD from service and hears firecrackers is justified in going outside and just shooting bullets everywhere, correct?
JULIE HARPER: No, that's not what I said.
JULIE HARPER: Okay.
MR. JAY: What this battered spouse syndrome evidence is helpful for is not that subjective mindset, but, rather, helping to explain the objective circumstances that are presented to somebody and how it might be different from somebody with those experiences? They may view something objectively different?
JULIE HARPER: I partially disagree with your question, because I would say that there are incidents or actual events between partners. That would be a factual thing, something has happened. And then a person subjectively experiences that as, you know, intrusive or controlling or traumatic. So that is the person's felt or subjective experience. The objective part is what happened.
MR. JAY: But, again, as a forensic psychologist, you're familiar with the justified use of force instruction, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I'm not a lawyer, though. So I'm aware of it, but I cannot debate fine points of that with you. I'm sorry.
MR. JAY: I'm just helping -- I'm trying to understand what you said before. Is there a subjective component, whether or not a person believes subjectively that they need to use some sort of force, deadly or non-deadly? You agree with that, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. JAY: And then there is also a second component that it's objectively reasonable to the ordinary person to use force, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I understand what you're saying, yes.
MR. JAY: And what I believe I heard you mention earlier about battered spouse syndrome was originally it was meant to help understand why people stay in these relationships?
JULIE HARPER: Originally, yes.
MR. JAY: Because it may not just be intuitive to somebody who doesn't understand these things why somebody who is abused time and time and time again would remain in that relationship, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And, again -- and I know you're not a lawyer, but if the law has evolved about retreat and not having to retreat and so on and so forth, that kind of changes some of the lens of this, correct?
MR. OWENS: Judge, I'm going to object.
THE COURT: Approach.
THE COURT: Okay. The question is withdrawn. You may proceed.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: All right. So you would agree that, hypothetically, if somebody is running down their partner, Saying negative things about them, telling them they are unattractive, telling them things that would potentially hurt their feelings, that could be an element of control of a verbally abusive relationship?
JULIE HARPER: It could.
MR. JAY: Okay. Propping one up, hypothetically saying, I'm the best thing that has ever happened to you, you'll never do better than me, is that a potential component of the control that one in an abusive relationship might exert over an intimate partner?
JULIE HARPER: Yes, to try to not encourage their partner to leave them.
MR. JAY: Considering gifts, hypothetically, that one partner has given to another partner, but considering it still to be your property because you gave it to them, is that a form of potential exertion of control over an intimate partner; when you give somebody, hypothetically, a bike, but still considered it your own bike?
JULIE HARPER: I mean, I would not -- I don't think that's strong evidence of that.
JULIE HARPER: I think that it does happen in relationships and people do that in general, but I wouldn't say that's, like, really specific to this.
MR. JAY: How about hypothetically exerting control over your intimate partner's identification papers, such as a birth certificate?
JULIE HARPER: So that can happen. People will hide things that are required for work, for instance, like, your driver's license or things like that.
MR. JAY: Now, I'm going to kind of -- I'm asking yes-or-no guestions. If Mr. Owens would like you to elaborate further, he's going to have that opportunity ina little bit, okay?
Hypothetically, if one partner destroys another partner's belongings, is that a potential example of exerting control in a relationship?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Thank you.
Hypothetically, is threatening to or actually using legal process as a threat against your intimate partner a potential indicia of controlling your partner? For instance, X, Y, or Z, or I'm going to get you arrested.
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I would agree that happens.
MR. JAY: Now, I assume you would agree that this cycle of violence that we've described, the tension building, the blowup, and then the honeymoon phase, you would agree that just one of those cycles could be enough to give somebody a traumatic experience, if they took it as a traumatic experience?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: She did.
MR. JAY: And at the time of this first date, they had obviously just met that night at a bar, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Right.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. JAY: And after this description that she provided you, which included him smashing her phone, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And making her crouch in, like, a fetal position on the porch for several hours to the point where it hurt her back, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: I believe so, yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Despite not having any of that intertwinement that we went through prior to this description, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: Now, it is possible, under what we've discussed, right, just that quick one date can be that buildup of tension and blowup, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: But it's different, hypothetically, than saying a spouse who is financially dependent on his or her other spouse in a 20-year marriage with a house full of kids than a first date, correct? You would agree, in severity in the intertwinement, there's a difference?
JULIE HARPER: There's a difference in intertwinement. The pattern can be exactly the same.
MR. JAY: Thank you.
Now, of course, there are many different reasons why somebody will stay ina relationship that, when perceived from the outside, others would say is abusive, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: The defendant described that she felt like she was making Mr. Torres a better person, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Right.
JULIE HARPER: With phone calls, yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: I understand.
MR. JAY: I know you -- that perhaps she wasn't necessarily financially dependent on Mr. Torres, correct?
I'm not saying conclusion, but those are indicators, if you're saying, Please spend your money elsewhere, that I don't need your money, correct?
JULIE HARPER: No. Because even if there was money that was needed by Ms. Boone, her tendency to put the needs of her partner before her would direct her to do exactly that, like, make him better, make him have the availability to visit his children, send them presents, even if she is the one that needed the money.
MR. JAY: And in her perspective, Mr. Torres needed her to do this, to make him a better person, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I believe that, yes.
JULIE HARPER: I don't think she gave it a specific quantity. We just went through a variety of her jobs that she had in the past.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: So she had been 18 for probably about 24 years. Did she give you a 24 -- right? 24 plus 18, 42?
JULIE HARPER: Oh. You said for 24 years, and that's why I was confused. You can't be eighteen for 24 years.
JULIE HARPER: But 24 years ago, I would agree.
JULIE HARPER: I'm not certain.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And what she was doing was living off of the settlement that she had been bought out of with her husband, was a lump sum, plus a thousand a month in alimony and $100 a month in child support, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: He worked at Ace Hardware.
JULIE HARPER: Right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Did she describe to you -- well, let me strike that.
She did describe to you one instance at least where the violence occurred in front of her child, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And you understand as a forensic psychologist that teachers are mandatory reporters, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: No. I didn't receive any DCF records.
MR. JAY: Did Ms. Boone ever indicate to you at any point in time she became too afraid to let Lucas come over to the house?
JULIE HARPER: Yes. There were times where she would ask Mr. Boone, so Brian Boone, to not bring him there.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And at different times, she told you that she would go over to Mr. Boone's house to escape the violence of Mr. Torres?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And February 24th of 2020, the child was scheduled to be picked up by Ms. Boone, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: Despite everything that she was aware of and what Mr. Brian Boone was aware of, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Right.
MR. JAY: And you saw in her police interview that she swore on the life of her son that she was telling them the truth, correct?
MR. OWENS: Judge?
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. OWENS: Object.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Legal objection?
MR. OWENS: That's an inaccurate characterization of the facts. We'll have to re-watch the video, but at the end of the video, she swears on her son's life that it was not intentional, that she did not cause the death.
THE COURT: Objection is sustained. You can rephrase.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: T'll rephrase it. She swore on her son's life that it was not intentional that she ended up killing Mr. Torres, correct?
MR. OWENS: Judge, I object.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Legal objection?
MR. OWENS: Same thing, that I did not end up killing Jorge Torres. That was never said by her. What she was saying was his death was unintentional. That's what she was implying, not that she didn't kill Jorge Torres. I would ask --
THE COURT: Response?
MR. JAY: The quote was, I promise you on Lucas' life that was not intentional, referring to the death she caused.
THE COURT: I understand the reference, but if the statement is particular as to what she's swearing on, let's keep it in line with what it is. You can make argument with that later.
MR. OWENS: Judge, I'd ask that that last question be stricken by him, because that was not in the transcript.
THE COURT: That's fine.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Objection is sustained. Question is stricken.
Members of the jury, questions are not evidence and you are not to give them any weight whatsoever.
Mr. Jay, you may proceed.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: She, quote-unguote, swore on her child's life that it was not intentional; "that," just "that," correct?
JULIE HARPER: Before I answer, I'd like you to direct me to that part of her interview.
MR. JAY: Okay. I'll strike it with you, then. It's on video.
Some of Ms. Boone's diagnoses predated her relationship with Mr. Torres, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And so when diagnoses predate an intimate -- a violent intimate partner relationship, there is an independent cause, even though they may then later contribute to the phenomenon we see, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Well, I wouldn't say that all mental disorders have an independent cause.
JULIE HARPER: Sometimes they're spontaneous or biological in nature.
MR. JAY: Well, let's talk about hers. I mean, you're familiar with her prior diagnoses and you went through her childhood, so on and so forth, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I did.
JULIE HARPER: She had --
JULIE HARPER: Yes, she did.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And you would agree that there are times in the Advent Health records where she goes to the hospital and then leaves before getting treated, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And there is a time when she goes to the hospital where she is described -- their words, not mine -- as having ETOH on board?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: In a medical record, you would use that shorthand for alcohol.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
MR. JAY: Okay. And in the records that you reviewed from Aspire, she came with complaints of depression in January of 2018, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And I know you're a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, so let me know if I'm pushing you too far and you're not going to answer, but you are familiar generally with the effects ethanol has on the body?
JULIE HARPER: Generally, yes.
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. JAY: And in your professional life or personal life, are you familiar with the standard serving size of drinks when you're evaluating somebody's drinking? For instance, Hey, I only drink two drinks a day. All right, well, are they 64 ounce mugs of beer or are they 12 ounce? So are you familiar in that context?
JULIE HARPER: It might be a question I would ask during evaluation. What are you referring to? Is it a mixed drink? Is it a shot? I try to identify that.
MR. JAY: And do you ever ask, if somebody says they drank two glasses of wine, well, how big are the glasses of wine?
JULIE HARPER: Sometimes.
MR. JAY: And is your understanding that five ounces is the standard serving of wine since it's about 12 percent alcohol?
JULIE HARPER: I'm not sure what the standard size is, but I would ask regarding, like, a wineglass.
MR. JAY: All right. And in January of 2018, when she came in crying and complaining of symptoms consistent with depression, she had a blood alcohol level of .165, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I believe so.
MR. JAY: And in October of 2018, when she ended up going to Aspire when she was found stumbling by police, she had a breath alcohol of .185?
JULIE HARPER: I'm reacting to your description of her stumbling by police. I know she approached police for help, so...
MR. JAY: So there have been two sets of records, but I believe you may have the same set that I received on September 27 of '24. Can you turn to page 21 of 57 of the Aspire records?
JULIE HARPER: Mine aren't numbered, but --
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: What I'm showing you is what is page 21 of 57 of records from Aspire that was provided to me by the defense on September 27, 2024. And just at the top, if you can read the first through the fourth lines.
JULIE HARPER: All right.
MR. OWENS: Judge, I would ask that she be allowed to read that entire paragraph under the rule of completeness.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Is there something else in the paragraph that pertains to the description that she was stumbling with regard -- or is there something else in the paragraph that deals with the stumbling that the expert took issue with?
MR. OWENS: Well, there's mention she stumbled up to the officer. She had a .183 or .185. And I think she talked about depression with them. They talked about -- she said she was having relationship problems. That's the part that -- I think he's going to read the part about the -- she's complaining of relationship problems, which I think under the rule of completeness ought to be allowed to be read.
MR. JAY: Absolutely, and he can -- it's his case. If he wants to introduce the medical records that he provided to me, and I have no objection to it, he can. That's how the rule of completeness works.
MR. OWENS: I don't want to introduce any records. I want to be able to have her review the entire paragraph, so when I ask her questions about it, she can say yes or no, did she complain about relationship problems?
THE COURT: Are you going to have a problem with him going into that on redirect?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. OWENS: Judge, I ain't got the records right in front of me. I mean, I ask to take a picture of the actual paragraph he's referring to. You're talking about a lot of records. If he takes one paragraph out of all those records and expects me to have it at my fingertips --
THE COURT: Okay. I understand that, but it's cross-examination and he's going to the basis of the factual documents. She had testified earlier she relied on mental health records. These are mental health records from Aspire, and there's a disagreement as to how she approached law enforcement, and that seems to be belied by what is in the records, so I'm going to allow him to proceed. You can take it up on redirect.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Jay.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: All right. October of 2018, there was a second visit to Aspire, and that was based upon her being found stumbling by law enforcement with a .185, correct? And that just calls for yes or no.
JULIE HARPER: Okay. So I'd have to say, no, the way you phrased the question.
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I would agree.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Thank you.
When you talked to Ms. Boone about that, she kind of just described an event of June of 2018, and blurring those two events, did she not?
JULIE HARPER: No. She told me she had two different Baker Acts.
JULIE HARPER: T'll have to reference my interview notes to find that out, if you would like me to.
MR. JAY: No.
Do you remember giving a deposition on October 1st at the State Attorney's Office downstairs?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
MR. JAY: And I'll ask opposing party, do you want me to show her her prior statement before I ask her about it?
MR. OWENS: I think she's got her deposition.
BY MR. JAY:
JULIE HARPER: I do.
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I'm with you.
JULIE HARPER: That's when I said in my deposition that she was describing her experience in June of '18.
MR. JAY: Okay. And she described this experience as going to the hospital to find a pastor, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And then what you describe, that she was talking about more of the violence that occurred specifically regarding a significant episode of Jorge driving her roughly in the car, so on and so forth, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: All right. Those were two separate incidences, January, when she came looking for the pastor, correct?
JULIE HARPER: So I'm just clarifying that there is a record that we started with this conversation from October of 2018, and there is a description of her trying to go to the hospital to seek a counselor. So those are two different instances.
MR. JAY: Right. And in January of 2018, when she went to the hospital crying and signs of depression, she indicated that was because her husband and son had gone out of town and she was feeling lonely and sad about having lost her job a few weeks earlier, right?
JULIE HARPER: There were numerous stressors there, yes.
MR. JAY: Nothing mentioned about any problems with somebody named Mr. Jorge or Jorge Torres, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Are you talking about January?
JULIE HARPER: So the hospital records are not referencing her relationship with Jorge on the January date.
MR. JAY: Now, in talking about February 23rd, 2020, with Ms. Boone, you talked to her about that on several occasions, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I did.
MR. JAY: And part of one of those conversations, at least, was about an incident that she indicated had happened the night before February 23rd, 2020, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And she indicated and told you that she had been dragged down the stairs the night before the suitcase incident, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And in part of your review of this case, you reviewed all the crime scene photos, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And were there any indications in the photographs of injuries on her consistent with being dragged down the stairs of carpet?
JULIE HARPER: Not -- I didn't see inside her scalp, so I didn't see photos of inside, you know, her hair follicles and this area of her head. On her outward body, there were no indications of that.
MR. JAY: And did you ask her how it was that she was injured during this dragging down the stairs?
JULIE HARPER: I don't think I went through specific injuries to her, no.
MR. JAY: Do you agree that alcohol intoxication affects the credibility of a historian that's providing history to you, patient or a client?
JULIE HARPER: If they're actively intoxicated, yes.
MR. JAY: We had talked -- well, we -- you and Mr. Owens had talked about narcissistic personality disorder earlier.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Are you talking about -- you're talking about the criterion of narcissistic personality disorder?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Thank you.
All right.
JULIE HARPER: 760, but --
JULIE HARPER: -- that's fine.
MR. JAY: One of the criteria is, Has a grandiose sense of self-importance, paren, for example, exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior, without commensurate achievements, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Two is, Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Three, Belief that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by or should associate with other special or high status people, paren, or institutions, correct?
JULIE HARPER: So, three, just a caveat, it says believes, not belief.
JULIE HARPER: But the rest of what you said I agree with is the criterion.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Five, Has a sense of entitlement, paren, unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Six is interpersonally exploitive, paren, takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Is interpersonally exploitative, I'd agree.
MR. JAY: Seven, Lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Bight is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: There are indications that she feels like that or has expressed that before.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love?
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. JAY: Do you remember going to the State Attorney's Office on October lst of 2024, and giving a deposition?
JULIE HARPER: I do.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And referring to page 89, lines 18 through 20. Let me know when you're ready. Are you ready?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Did you give the following answer to the following question: Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love?
And your answer was: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: I did answer yes there.
MR. JAY: Okay. She does not, according -- in your estimation, does not believe that she is special and unique and can only associate with high status people, correct?
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Correct, she is not.
MR. JAY: And when discussing whether or not she lacked empathy or was unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others, you indicated that that might be the case, but it's not intentional?
JULIE HARPER: In other words, she is not aware if she's inconveniencing others.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Not five, which would be required, correct, for a diagnosis of the personality disorder?
JULIE HARPER: If that were the correct diagnosis, you would need five.
MR. JAY: All right. During your conversations with Ms. Boone, the defendant in this case, she explained to you that cheating to her means when Mr. Torres would look at pornography, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Right.
JULIE HARPER: No, not that he was engaging in sexual intercourse with actual women.
MR. JAY: Part of the records that you did not review were the text messages that were part of the phone extraction of her phone device, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: You indicated in your conversation with Mr. Owens that some of the traits that are common -- commonly seen in abusers would be control, jealousy, easily angered?
JULIE HARPER: Those could be, yes.
JULIE HARPER: Being a person who segregates their victim away from other sources of support. Somebody that exhibits coercive control, meaning that they would prevent the person from engaging in activities that would be independent. So restricting their ability to have independent, like, life, job, money, things like that that would be supportive of them being left, for instance. Other things would be using emotional expressions, like rage, to cause a physiological reaction in another person. So those could be additional descriptions.
MR. JAY: Specifically, the materials you reviewed -- I just want to make sure we're on the same page -- paperwork from prior cases involving Mr. Torres and Ms. Boone?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Right.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's part of it, yes.
MR. JAY: And then did you review any other videos where there's conversations between Ms. Boone and Mr. Torres?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Now, today you had indicated that you had reviewed the photographs from some prior incidents of violence, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: No. There are -- there are photos included with the --
JULIE HARPER: -- case packages. Thank you. I'm not sure what to call it.
MR. JAY: That's fine.
All right. And did you review any body-worn camera from those prior case packages?
JULIE HARPER: No, I did not. I didn't have them.
JULIE HARPER: Are you speaking of documents only?
JULIE HARPER: All right. Just checking with my notes I prepared for today.
JULIE HARPER: I don't know if -- oh, this would be part of the discovery. The investigative report is within those 413 pages.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Melissa Sexton.
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: I did not.
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: No, I did not.
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. OWENS: Judge, can we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
(At the bench.)
MR. OWENS: He asked that in a way to try to impeach her, that that's something that she should have looked at that she didn't do, and we had an issue about that. So I think that's improper for him to ask that question.
THE COURT: Response?
THE COURT: Is your objection as to lack of review of Orange County Jail records or jail records generally, using that terminology, or is it an objection to what she did not review?
MR. OWENS: I think he was implying, first, what all she did review, but then he went into the, you didn't consider this, this, this, this. And when it got to jail records, he said records, but, really, it was jail medical records that we had that issue on. I don't know if you remember it earlier.
THE COURT: When you're referring to --
MR. OWENS: Excuse me?
THE COURT: This is a question directed to Mr. Jay.
Mr. Jay, when you're referring to the jail records, are you referring to anything with regard to Ms. Boone's jail records?
THE COURT: Because I have concerns about that. I know she elicited that she's been incarcerated, but I'm trying to avoid any prejudice with regard to that.
MR. JAY: Right, and I'm just asking if she reviewed any treatment records, but Ms. Boone is the one that said that.
THE COURT: I know that, but it's specific as to Orange County Jail medical records?
THE COURT: Okay. So let's be specific.
With regard, sir, to your objection regarding Mr. Jay inquiring of these things, you can take up on redirect if -- whether or not she needed to look at these things.
MR. OWENS: Didn't we have an issue where we agreed not to pursue the medical records? I thought we were attempting to get them and the defense, I think, finally got them or was given them right before we were about to pick the jury and Mr. Jay complained that it was so late in the game, that he was going to have to take time to review all the records over the weekend during his private personal time and had asked, I think, maybe to reduce them down. I can't remember.
THE COURT: They were 382 pages, and this looks like it's item six of the Defendant's Fifth Amendment Reciprocal Discovery Exhibit List, certified medical records from the Orange County Jail, not yet received by the defense. The objection was filed. My notes reflect that 382 pages were provided on October 17 to the State, and I think we had --
THE COURT: I think it was during.
MR. OWENS: Oh. It was during?
THE COURT: It was during. I don't know that we had finalized -- because I think it was delivered to them the morning on USB drive potentially on the 17th, because that was last week, Thursday.
MR. OWENS: It's starting to all blend together.
THE COURT: My only notes are there is something about an intake screen on page 135 through 138.
THE COURT: They were looking to introduce.
MR. JAY: What I'm asking now is, did she rely upon records that are routinely relied upon by experts in her field, which would include diagnoses.
THE COURT: I totally get that.
MR. OWENS: And that's the whole reason that I wanted her -- wanted the records, is because I wanted her to review them so this very question would not be asked. You didn't review these records; you should have done that. That's why we got the information as soon as we could. When we got it from the jail, it was during jury selection, which was four days. I think it was on the third day. We hadn't swore the jury yet. We got them, immediately we gave it to him, and he complained because there were so many pages. He wanted them paired down. Eventually we just agreed or stipulated that we wouldn't --
THE COURT: -- use them, but that was for the purposes of admitting them into evidence.
MR. OWENS: I know, but now he's trying to use that against me, and I was doing him a favor.
MR. JAY: I had reviewed all the records. What we were discussing was what was going to be admitted into evidence.
THE COURT: Correct. I agree with Mr. Jay.
MR. OWENS: I'm just trying to be a colleague and now he's using it against me.
THE COURT: But the discovery -- the exhibit list was solely as to what was going to be sought to be entered into evidence at that time, whether it was you -- the whole kitty of everything that may be admitted. I agree with you that Mr. Jay was -- had an issue with 382 pages. Let's take the time frame out of it, that there were 382 pages and the issue was culling it down.
The only note I have is an intake screen from pages 135 through 138. I don't have any other, but I recall the defense at that time, after discussing, had abandoned attempting to move those into evidence. Whether or not she reviewed them or not I think is fair game for cross-examination.
MR. OWENS: Wasn't there some talk about that, about whether she could review those? Because I was going to send them to her. You remember, Judge, I was going to send them to her and you made a ruling, so I said, I'm not -- I'm going to stop sending them to her. And I think I showed you an email or showed you a text message that I had sent to her, it's on my phone, where I said, Do not review -- in bold and capital letters, Do not review the medical records.
THE COURT: If you want to go back and look at your phone and see if you could find that, I just can't remember.
Do not look or consider the jail medical records of Sarah Boone. That was October 17th, at 1:06 p.m.
MR. JAY: I can't remember the difference between the discovery issue as far as it coming into evidence or what she reviewed --
THE COURT: Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to -- you can -- I'll give an opportunity to go back and confirm what it is that she hasn't relied on so you're not ending at a weird point, and I'll leave that to your discretion, but I'll sustain the objection with regard to the Orange County Jail records specifically.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained in part and overruled in part.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: You testified earlier in the normal course of practice of forensic psychology and psychiatry you-all do rely upon the diagnoses of other experts, correct?
JULIE HARPER: They can inform my opinion, yes.
MR. JAY: Thank you.
And you have not reviewed any electronic communications in the form of texts regarding Ms. Boone's case, correct?
JULIE HARPER: No, I did not review.
JULIE HARPER: Well, 911.
JULIE HARPER: No, other than that.
MR. JAY: Now, let's talk about February 23rd of 2020. She told you that they didn't really have anything going on to do that particular day, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Did some chores, and then as a reward, they could rest after doing those chores, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Right.
MR. JAY: She indicated to you that she and Mr. Torres did not begin drinking until about 4:00 p.m., correct?
JULIE HARPER: I'll have to reference.
JULIE HARPER: Great. Thank you.
36?
JULIE HARPER: All right. I'm with you.
Around 4:00 p.m.
JULIE HARPER: I did.
MR. JAY: That included receipts for some purchases that were made at Publix on February 22nd and 23rd, correct?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And one of those receipts was a purchase for a 1.5 liter bottle of Woodbridge Chardonnay at 12:17 p.m. on February 23rd, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Did you question her about the inconsistency of them having purchased a bottle of wine at 12:17 that afternoon and not start drinking until 4:00 p.m.?
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. JAY: And did she tell you that they had any wine left over from the day before that they consumed that day?
JULIE HARPER: At some point -- I'm not sure if it was the day that I was going through this line by line with you in my deposition, but I am aware, yes, that there was an unfinished bottle of wine from some other date.
MR. JAY: And then as the receipt showed, there was two additional bottles of 1.5 liters of wine purchased at 12:17 p.m. and about 5:30 p.m. on the 23rd, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Right.
MR. JAY: And were you aware of approximately how much Ms. Boone, the defendant, weighed at the time of this offense, February 23rd, 2020?
JULIE HARPER: Around 100 pounds.
JULIE HARPER: Right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Do you take into account this alcohol consumption when evaluating what Ms. Boone is telling you about the events of the day?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Did she tell you whether or not she was intoxicated by the amount of alcohol she consumed that day?
(Cell phone interruption.)
THE COURT: Please silence your cell phone.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
JULIE HARPER: So she did not describe herself as intoxicated originally when we discussed this, so...
BY MR. JAY:
JULIE HARPER: Intoxicated.
MR. JAY: Okay. Hypothetically, if she had told the jury that she was intoxicated at the time of the offense, would that affect your evaluation of her credibility and the history she provided you?
JULIE HARPER: No, because that was also my opinion.
MR. JAY: Okay. Did she indicate to you, in describing the events of February 23rd, 2020, that there was any point in time she just simply did not remember?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: So she did not remember taking the videos of the Suitcase -- or the incident in the suitcase until she was at the interrogation room, I guess, and then they were going through them with her. Then she recalled that.
MR. JAY: I'm talking about specifically with you, did she indicate that there were any portions of the night -- or day or night that she did not remember?
JULIE HARPER: I can't recall anything specifically right now.
MR. JAY: Okay. Hypothetically, if she had indicated to the jury that she did not remember the nine or ten minutes immediately preceding the first video being taken, would that be inconsistent with what she told you then?
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: Right. She just didn't say that.
MR. JAY: Okay. Would it affect your evaluation of what she told you about the events of February 23rd, 2020, if she hypothetically has testified that she did not remember ten minutes before the videos?
JULIE HARPER: Not really, no, because the event and the -- like, the course of events that she narrated to me occurred over several hours. So when you interview somebody about circumstances of an offense, it's the usual for someone to not remember every single minute for hours at a time. I can't imagine that anybody's memory could hold that much unless they have, like, a photographic memory of something.
MR. JAY: I'm not asking about hours and hours, you know, an itemization of her day's events. We're talking about the 20 minutes of the offense. Does that affect your -- the weight that you give her history as she provided you? It's just yes or no.
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. JAY: Okay. Now, what she indicated to you was, the day had been going well, it was fun and games, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: To her, she said it was a good day, so that's what she told me.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And there comes a point in time where the activities turned toward hide and seek, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Right.
MR. JAY: And when she comes down from the shower, that's when Mr. Torres is in the suitcase, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Getting into it or -- yeah.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: And does she describe whether it was 100 percent zipped to you or just a certain percentage?
JULIE HARPER: She said that it wasn't zipped all the way.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
MR. JAY: And then there came a point in time where Mr. Torres was getting mad about being zipped in the suitcase?
JULIE HARPER: She told me that he was getting mad, yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: That is what is recorded on the video.
JULIE HARPER: Well, what made her mad was not that he was saying he couldn't breathe, it's what he was saying that was making her mad.
JULIE HARPER: She -- at the time, she said that he said something that was making her mad, and so that's the extent of what we talked about at that moment.
JULIE HARPER: Right. She said he said something that made her mad and that started making her mad.
MR. JAY: You didn't find it important to learn what specifically he said that made her mad, correct?
JULIE HARPER: I don't agree that I didn't find it important.
JULIE HARPER: Because aS a person who is traumatized is describing their experience, as a trained clinician, you will allow open-ended discussion of that experience. And so it's not an interrogation. You don't go asking confrontational questions at the time of their first narration.
JULIE HARPER: I asked her different questions about --
JULIE HARPER: -- being confrontational.
MR. JAY: Did you ever ask her specifically in any of your nine visits with her what it was that he said that made her mad?
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: Right.
MR. JAY: And once she got mad, she decided that she was going to leave him in there for two minutes?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: That's what she said.
MR. JAY: And the reason she was doing that was because she wanted him to understand how it feels to be choked and what she had experienced?
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I did actually ask her that.
JULIE HARPER: Well, she thought that he could get out himself. That's one thing. She said that when she was able to unzip it, it was not some significant thing, she was able to unzip it easily, so she said it never occurred to her that he couldn't get out.
(Brief interruption.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. JAY:
JULIE HARPER: Right.
MR. JAY: And did you understand what the metadata or what the timestamps were for each of those items?
JULIE HARPER: I'm sure when I reviewed it, I saw the timestamps.
JULIE HARPER: I would.
MR. JAY: And if Mr. Torres had not been able to get himself out of the suitcase within 20 minutes -- she didn't indicate that she let him out, correct?
JULIE HARPER: She did not.
MR. JAY: She described to you -- Ms. Boone being the "she" -- that she was helpful to the police?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Do you consider -- do you agree with that assessment, that she was helpful to the police?
JULIE HARPER: In the sense that she was having conversations with them without counsel. I would consider that helpful to the police.
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: Yes, I think that I would agree with that.
MR. JAY: And when she described getting Mr. Torres out of the suitcase, she described stretching his little legs?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: I need to clarify. Physical fight.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: Poke.
MR. JAY: Poke. And so, do we agree that that means, like, poking out like this as opposed to swinging it like you're a baseball hitter (indicating)?
JULIE HARPER: I would agree.
JULIE HARPER: I believe so.
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
JULIE HARPER: No.
JULIE HARPER: Did I question her about whether -- can you just repeat the question? I want to make sure I'm answering it correctly.
MR. JAY: Yes, ma'am, you're fine.
Did you ever -- in considering the autopsy report and the autopsy photographs that you reviewed --
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: -- when she said that she nudged or poked with the baseball bat, did you ever question her about that, given the severity of his injuries?
JULIE HARPER: So to answer correctly, I did question her --
JULIE HARPER: -- about how she used the bat, but she reiterated that she poked, and she gestured what she meant, so I did question her about that.
MR. JAY: And did you have any questions about that history she relayed to you, given the other evidence in this case that you reviewed?
JULIE HARPER: Just in contrast, to the interrogation video, SO...
MR. OWENS: Judge, I object.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Legal grounds of the objection?
MR. OWENS: Judge, she's a forensic psychologist. She's not a pathologist where she can reconstruct, Well, the injuries here are consistent with a bat being poked versus a bat being swirled. That's what he's asking her.
THE COURT: All right. Fair enough.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: Did she indicate all this nudging or poking with the bat was done while he was inside the suitcase?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. JAY: She never told you that there was any nudging or poking with the bat when he was outside the suitcase?
JULIE HARPER: Correct.
JULIE HARPER: That's right.
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. JAY: Did she ever give you a history about a loud boom occurring inside of her townhouse that evening?
JULIE HARPER: No.
MR. JAY: And you never had the opportunity, obviously, to interview Mr. Torres about these things, correct?
JULIE HARPER: Of course not, no.
THE COURT: Any redirect examination?
MR. OWENS: Briefly, Judge.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. OWENS:
MR. OWENS: The state attorney talked to you about power and control, that an abusive partner will use power and control over the victim in an intimate partner violence situation?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Threatening someone's dogs, is that an example of someone using control?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Taking car keys from the other party, is that an example of control?
JULIE HARPER: If they're withholding, yes.
MR. OWENS: Taking a phone and withholding a phone?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: A debit card?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Destroying a home, TVs, putting holes in the wall?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: Not helping pay the rent and other bills?
JULIE HARPER: So I would say that that could be withholding. That could go under coercive control of another person.
MR. OWENS: What about violating a court order to have no contact with the person?
JULIE HARPER: Yes.
MR. OWENS: That's all the questions I have.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Can this witness be released?
THE COURT: Mr. Owens?
MR. OWENS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you, Doctor.
JULIE HARPER: Thank you. Just allow me a moment to pack up.
THE COURT: If you'd collect all your stuff, ma'am. No worries.
JULIE HARPER: Sorry.
THE COURT: No apologies necessary.
(Witness excused.)
MR. OWENS: Can we approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.