2.Tonia Werner — Direct (Part 1)
219 linesDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JAY:
TONIA WERNER: Good morning.
TONIA WERNER: I'm employed at Meridian Behavioral Healthcare in Gainesville, Florida.
TONIA WERNER: I'm their chief medical officer.
TONIA WERNER: Yes. So I graduated with an undergraduate degree at the University of South Florida in chemistry. I then attended medical school at American University of the Carribean.
I did a residency in psychiatry at Connecticut Valley Hospital in Connecticut under the auspices of Yale University. I then came back to Florida and did a fellowship, one year, in forensic psychiatry at the University of Florida.
TONIA WERNER: Yes. So I'm a licensed physician in Florida. I am board certified in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. I was initially employed on faculty at the University of Florida from 1998 through 2015. I retired there as the vice chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and the Director of the Forensic Institute. I then went to work as the chief medical officer at Meridian Behavioral Healthcare, which is a community mental health center.
TONIA WERNER: So psychiatry is the treatment of mental health disorders.
TONIA WERNER: Forensic psychiatry is the interplay of psychiatry and the law. So anywhere where psychiatry intersects with legal issues.
TONIA WERNER: So, a psychiatrist has gone to medical school, where a psychologist has not.
TONIA WERNER: Yes, I am.
MR. JAY: In the course of practicing medicine as a psychiatrist, do psychiatrists prescribe medication to treat mental disorders?
TONIA WERNER: Yes, we do.
MR. JAY: And when did you begin your work as a forensic psychiatrist as opposed to working at the facility at the University of Florida or was that concurrent?
TONIA WERNER: In 1996, in the state of Connecticut, while I was doing my training at Yale University, I testified for the first time as an expert witness in the state of Connecticut.
TONIA WERNER: I have.
TONIA WERNER: Thousands of times.
TONIA WERNER: Yes, it does.
TONIA WERNER: So competence is, do they understand the legal process, do they understand who the different players are in the courtroom, who is on their side, who is not on their side, what they're charged with, what the possible penalties are, what the possible plea options are.
TONIA WERNER: IT have. I've done sanity at the time of the crime, and also I've been appointed by the Governor of the State of Florida to do sanity for execution.
MR. JAY: And have you ever been involved in working as a forensic psychiatrist involving the subject matter of battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: I have.
TONIA WERNER: I've been asked to do evaluations by the prosecution and the defense several times with regards to -- and it's come up in different cases, criminal cases, with regards to intimate partner violence.
MR. JAY: And does all violent episodes within a relationship result in something that we are describing as battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: No.
TONIA WERNER: Yes. So this is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, and this is the fifth edition, text revision, which is the most current edition.
TONIA WERNER: No, it is not.
TONIA WERNER: It would come under one of the trauma categories, most specifically under -- most likely post-traumatic stress disorder.
TONIA WERNER: So, this is a disorder that's recognized under the DSM for individuals who have suffered a traumatic event, and then they have reexperiencing of the traumatic event, they have different symptoms besides reexperiencing, such as hyperarousal, and also avoidance of triggers or symptoms, things that would trigger a response to it.
MR. JAY: Are there any agreed-upon criteria within the relevant forensic psychiatric and forensic psychological communities about battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: There are.
TONIA WERNER: So, it is, again, having experienced a trauma repeatedly, violence within an intimate relationship, and then having symptoms secondary to that. Avoidance, so tiptoeing around, trying to avoid recreating the violence.
MR. JAY: And if a person experiences an environmental stimuli, something happens to them, another person does or says something to them, is their subjective reaction what is defined as whether there's trauma present or not?
TONIA WERNER: I'm not sure I understand the question.
MR. OWENS: I'm going to object.
THE COURT: You can rephrase.
MR. OWENS: Calls --
BY MR. JAY:
MR. JAY: You described there's a difference between experiencing a violent relationship and whether or not that person is going to experience trauma from those behaviors they witnessed and experienced; is that fair?
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
MR. JAY: Okay. Now I've lost my train of thought from the question.
Is it fair to say that an experience that a person has, whether or not that person believes it is traumatic, is a subjective experience?
TONIA WERNER: Yes. Each individual is different and so each individual is going to take that experience differently.
MR. JAY: Can, hypothetically, a couple be involved in a violent relationship for a number of years, even three and a half years, and battered spouse syndrome not necessarily apply to either or both of them?
TONIA WERNER: Yes, that's correct.
TONIA WERNER: So, again, each individual is different. So one individual may develop the symptoms of battered spouse syndrome and one individual may not under the same exact circumstances, just depending on their makeup and what they have experienced in their background and their biological makeup.
MR. JAY: And is there a cycle of violence that is sometimes used to describe battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: There is.
TONIA WERNER: There is. So there is the initial -- there's kind of a tension buildup section where you feel the kind of tension building up, and the individual can feel kind of the incident coming. And then there's the actual incident of violence. And then following the incident of violence, there's a honeymoon phase -- what they call a honeymoon phase and that's the third phase where the individual who created the violence attempts to make up to the victim and recreate kind of the relationship and pull them back in. And then it starts all over again where you feel the kind of tension start building up again to the incidence of violence.
TONIA WERNER: No.
TONIA WERNER: So it can also come in ways of coercion, it can come in ways of control, such as financial. So if an individual controls another individual financially or controls their ability to drive or go out, their ability to be around their other family members or friends, kind of isolates them from other individuals, controls their ability to work, so controls their ability to make money or access to funds. So they can control them in any number of ways.
TONIA WERNER: Yes, absolutely.
MR. JAY: Can a man be on the receiving end of emotional or physical or sexual trauma and potentially experience -- well, not -- strike that.
Can a man be on the receiving end of verbal -- of harsh words, physical violence or sexual violence, and end up having this syndrome of battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: Yes, it crosses all boundaries. And we see it in all types of relationships. Whether it be heterosexual or homosexual relationships, we see it cross all boundaries.
MR. JAY: And can this element of control come from controlling personal items such as identification papers?
TONIA WERNER: Yes, absolutely.
MR. JAY: Can control potentially, hypothetically, come from partner A gifting partner B an item, but still considering that item partner A's because he or she paid for it even though it was a gift?
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
TONIA WERNER: I do.
TONIA WERNER: She's sitting at a table there wearing a dark suit and a pinkish top.
THE COURT: Record will so reflect.
BY MR. JAY:
TONIA WERNER: It was early in October, I believe, October 2nd.
TONIA WERNER: Yes, it was.
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
TONIA WERNER: The defense and the prosecution.
TONIA WERNER: So I met with Ms. Boone at the jail ina conference room. Again, the prosecution was there and her attorney. I met with her for approximately two and a half hours, just under two and a half hours. I introduced myself and explained that the interview would not be confidential, but I would be coming to court, if asked, to share my opinions, and she agreed to participate.
I then start out with just general information. So getting to know her, date of birth, kind of background information, who her parents are, childhood. I go through her educational background, her work background, her marital background. I go through health psychiatric background, any substance use issues. I do a mental status examination --
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
TONIA WERNER: So, mental status examination is just questions to determine kind of memory and cognition, kind of how their thought process is, how they're thinking, are they able to kind of fluidly think through processes.
TONIA WERNER: And then I transition from there into walking through the incident that happened with her.
TONIA WERNER: Is it alright if I refer to my notes just to --
MR. JAY: If you need them to refresh your memory, please do so, but don't read from them, just let us know.
TONIA WERNER: So she had a difficult time recalling what time they actually woke up that day. Initially, she said in the morning and then she said she wasn't even sure that it was in the morning.
She said that they both wanted to drink, but that she asked that they could clean the house first instead, and that they did some vacuuming and cleaning.
They had a half a bottle of wine left over from the day before that they drank, she felt, about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. They drank that out on the back porch. And she described that they had kind of two beach chairs out there and a dartboard, and that they kind of hung out there a lot on the back porch, spent time out there. They did a puzzle out there and completed that and then did some kind of artwork.
She felt like he was getting frustrated thinking about his life, that he had lost his job, and so she encouraged him to call his daughters. Although she knew that they did not like to talk to him when he was drinking, so I'm not sure why she had encouraged him to call them at that point because they were already drinking.
And she also at some point encouraged him to call his brother because she wanted him to explain to his brother that he had pulled her down the stairs the night before, although that didn't happen. He didn't explain that to the brother, according to her.
And then at some point, they went and got another bottle of wine and some cigarettes from the grocery store and continued to drink.
And then they were inside the house and then he, I guess, tagged her at some point and said Tag, you're it, which indicated that they were going to play hide and seek. And she said she went upstairs and hid in the shower and waited for him to come and he never came upstairs. Excuse me. And so she eventually came out of the shower to look for him. And that when she was coming down the stairs, she said she saw him slipping into a suitcase, which was on the living room floor, that they had put out because they were going to donate it.
And -- sorry. And so she went downstairs and indicated that she had found him and they were kind of laughing, and she zipped the suitcase up and they continued to laugh, she said, at that point.
And they were having a good time and laughing and enjoying themselves and having a good time. And she said, and then she became angry and so -- and she said she remembered what it felt like when he was choking her and she became angry.
TONIA WERNER: I'm going to refer to my notes at this point.
TONIA WERNER: She said that she shook the suitcase and that she lost control of it and it flipped.
TONIA WERNER: Then she said that he stuck two fingers out. And her son's baseball bat was sitting there and she picked the bat up and hit his hand.
TONIA WERNER: And then she went upstairs and waited for him to come upstairs.
MR. JAY: All right. Alcohol. Can you tell us what you know about the effects, as a medical doctor, of ethanol or alcohol on a human body?
TONIA WERNER: Yes. So it causes intoxication, as we all know, and it causes disinhibition. It works on the frontal lobe of the brain and allows us to do things that we wouldn't normally do. It disinhibits us.
MR. JAY: And in the course of your practice, have you ever come across a diagnosis of alcohol abuse disorder?
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
TONIA WERNER: Well, alcohol abuse is an old disorder. So we used to use alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse. It's now been combined in the DSM-5-TR. It is alcohol use disorder.
MR. JAY: In considering what a patient or a client or somebody that you've been asked to evaluate by a government entity, do you take into account that person who is relaying the history to you is a consumption of alcohol at the time of the history that they're giving?
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
TONIA WERNER: Because, again, it affects their behavior and their actions.
TONIA WERNER: It can.
MR. JAY: All right. What, if any, relationship is there between acute alcohol use or acute alcohol intoxication and battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: Again, it could affect your memory, it can affect your reactions, it can affect your response to different things.
MR. JAY: Does the disinhibitory nature of alcohol strengthen, weaken, or have no effect on battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: It would depend on each individual again.
MR. JAY: Okay. Generally speaking, is it important as an evaluator to get as much information as possible before rendering an opinion, such as diagnosing somebody with something out of the DSM-5-TR or battered spouse syndrome?
TONIA WERNER: Yes.
MR. JAY: In this particular case, did you require any additional information to reach your conclusion about the relationship between battered spouse syndrome and the events of this evening?
TONIA WERNER: I based my opinion on the information that I had. Certainly, if there was more information, my opinion would be subject to change.
TONIA WERNER: My opinion was that she did not give me enough information to diagnose her with post-traumatic stress disorder at the time that I evaluated her at the jail.
MR. OWENS: Judge, if we could approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: What's the legal objection, sir?
MR. OWENS: I don't know if it's a legal objection, but Dr. Werner evaluated Sarah Boone at the Orange County Jail on October the 2nd. Two days later, on October the 4th, I took her deposition and, on several of the issues, she said, I've not had -- I have not formed opinions as to whether or not I think she suffers from this or that. A couple of them she said she was convinced that she suffered from alcohol abuse syndrome. But on issues like post-traumatic stress, issues like battered spouse syndrome, and I think a couple more issues, she said, I would need more time to reflect.
Since I just saw her two days ago, I would need more time to review my notes. She said it would probably be a couple more hours that I would need to spend on it. And I said, Well, can we agree between the lawyers that if she forms any opinions, that the defense would be notified? I was not notified.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. OWENS: That she formed this opinion.
THE COURT: Mr. Jay?
MR. JAY: My expected answer from her is that, based on what Sarah Boone said about the events, that battered spouse syndrome is inapplicable because Mr. Torres and her were laughing, and then it was her who decided to get angry and would not let him out of the suitcase. That's all I'm trying to establish with her.
MR. OWENS: JI understand. But we had an agreement that if she changed her opinions, that you would let me know and I could -- we agreed that I could retake the deposition --
THE COURT: Give me a moment.
MR. OWENS: It was an agreement, Judge. I'll show --
THE COURT: That's what I'm pulling up right now.
MR. OWENS: It's mentioned on several pages. It's more than --
THE COURT: Do you have specific pages in the transcript that addresses this agreement?
MR. OWENS: It starts on page 38.
THE COURT: Line?
MR. OWENS: Well, I start to ask her on line 17, and then she responds on line 21, but it goes on for several pages after that.
THE COURT: This pertains to adjustment disorder, if I'm reviewing this correctly.
MR. OWENS: Well, it keeps going on, Judge, like I said, several pages.
THE COURT: I know. I'm on 41 right now.
Specifically, page 41, line 15, this is from Dr. Werner. So she's saying -- I'm assuming that's Boone -- she has generalized anxiety disorder. And I'm Saying, I want to review it more to see if I think it's more of an adjustment disorder to being in the correctional setting right now and the stressors that she is under right now as opposed to general anxiety disorder.
Mr. Jay, on line 22, then states: Okay. So on this topic, if something new comes up, then we can address it, but if you have other topics to depose her on, then I suggest we go on.
Moving to 42, line 1, Mr. Owens: I agree, I agree. Dr. Werner, just let the state attorney know. I know that you may be -- you know, we are short on time if -- if you do review your notes over the weekend and whatnot and formulate any other opinions, just let the state attorney know and we'll address it. Witness: Absolutely.
MR. JAY: I think it's page 46, and I think the problem is she didn't answer the question that I'm trying to ask her. On Page 46 --
THE COURT: Line 1?
MR. OWENS: Just need to read 46.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just read 46. Give me a second.
I mean, unless I'm missing something, it's lines 13 through 15, she identifies that as -- unless I misunderstood the question or the answer, it's in the depo.
MR. OWENS: I would have to look through my notes to see if she fully met the criteria --
THE COURT: But the answer is no. Question, line 13, page 46: But you don't believe that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder in your opinion? No.
MR. OWENS: Look at line 19.
THE COURT: I would have to go through my notes -- back through my notes to see if she fully met the criteria. I'm sorry. Hit the wrong button. Line 17: Can you explain why you don't think she suffers from -- no, I didn't say one way or the other. I would have to look back through my notes for that. Is that something you may in the future give an opinion about after some more time reflecting with your notes? I may. Okay.
MR. OWENS: 25.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. Okay. That's something you will let me know about if that changes? Yes. Okay.
MR. OWENS: And then --
THE COURT: Just for the record, that's 46, line 25 through 47, lines 1 through 2 of the deposition of Ms. Werner -- Dr. Werner.
MR. OWENS: She did go all the way through on several --
THE COURT: Okay. Well, the only issue right now is the PTSD, is the opinion on PTSD. So what's your -- what I don't hear is a legal objection.
MR. OWENS: We had agreed -- I don't know if I can find the right page, but we had agreed to retake a short deposition -- maybe if you give me some time I can find it, where Mr. Jay said, I will agree to a short deposition if her opinion changes between now and the time of trial. And I relied on that because she would not be pinned down. If you'll give me a few minutes, I can find it. Do you want to let the jury out?
THE COURT: I think we're going to have to at this point in time.
Mr. Jay, do you have anything to add, just for my own edification, at this time?
MR. JAY: Again, Judge, what I'm trying to establish with this witness is, regardless of whether Ms. Boone had PTSD, A, B, C, D, or X, Y, 4, or anything else, that it doesn't matter based on what Ms. Boone specifically told her about the incident. That's all I'm trying to get out. The answers went divergent from the question. I don't think I'm violating any agreement because her opinion has not changed. I was only able to speak to her for two minutes yesterday, and just asked her about the specifics of does this apply given what she stated about the event, and that's not something that's new from the deposition.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me remove the jury for a moment. Thank you.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Members of the jury, thank you so much for your patience. I have a matter I have to discuss with counsel outside of you-all's presence. It may take a little bit more time than just our conference up here and we don't want to have you-all just hanging out waiting for us to figure out what we're going to do next. So I appreciate your patience.
We're going to excuse you to the deliberation room at this time. Please do not conduct any independent investigation or research as to the persons, places, things, or charge involved, and do not have any conversations amongst yourselves or anyone else about those things. And we'll bring you back in as promptly as possible. Thank you.
COURT STAFF: Jury's exiting.
(Jury exited.)
THE COURT: You-all can be seated. Thank you.
Mr. Owens, if you can find me that portion of the transcript that we were addressing as to additional opinions in other depositions, and anything in Dr. Werner's deposition that you believe we need to address regarding this opinion as it relates to PTSD.
MR. OWENS: Well, Judge, it applied to every opinion she was going to express. It started on page 37, line 24: As it relates to Sarah Boone, do you have any diagnosis as it relates to her? And then 38 is when she started talking about a generalized anxiety disorder, and that she was not for sure whether she -- Sarah Boone had a generalized anxiety disorder versus if it was just an adjustment disorder to being in jail.
And then she also mentioned in that same answer that Sarah Boone had some narcissistic personality traits and that those were my new major diagnoses. And then I questioned her further about that. She explained again on line 17 about general anxiety disorder versus the adjustment disorder, and that I hadn't had time to fully formulate that opinion out. Line 21: I need time go through my notes and think about it and process it.
THE COURT: Page? We're still on page 38?
MR. OWENS: Page 38, line 21: I need time to go through my notes, think about it, process it.
But I had the other depositions, as you are aware, yesterday, so I had to prepare for those and go through that. So I had -- I have not had time to process all my notes.
And I said on line 39: Well, Doctor, I'm trying not to inconvenience you. You know, we're set for trial October 7th for jury selection.
Line 6: I anticipate your testimony wouldn't be until a little later, so we could discontinue the deposition and then reset it when you've got time to review. Because, obviously, I'm not going to want to take your deposition and you have other opinions that are not going to be covered.
And then I asked -- looks like Mr. Jay asked, What's your position? He said, conducting discovery after the jury trial starts is completely unacceptable to me. So that's my position. If she needs to issue a supplemental report or if there has become a need for a second deposition, then we can address that. But it would be my position that we need to get this done because the State doesn't have any appellate rights once the jury is sworn and jeopardy attaches.
And I say on line 23 of page 39: Well, you obviously understand my position. I'd like to finish the deposition today as well. But if she is holding out that she may have other opinions and other diagnoses after she has had more time to think, review the paperwork, then obviously that creates an issue.
Then she said: But if that happens, I can bring that forward and then you can add to your deposition at that point, if my opinions change after having reviewed further.
I refer to Mr. Jay, page 9 of 40, Mr. Jay says: I think we plow ahead. This is our time with her. The court reporter is prepared to give us a transcript by the end of the week. If something needs to be amended --
THE COURT: End of the weekend.
MR. OWENS: End of the weekend. If something needs to be amended and she can, A, issue a report; B, if we need to take a deposition, an abbreviated deposition on the limited subject matter she is not prepared to testify about to on today, then we can do that. But the notion of halting the deposition that is set for three hours, and then doing a three-hour deposition during trial, especially after jeopardy is attached, is not what the State will do.
And I respond on page 40, line 23: I'm not suggesting that, Mr. Jay. I'm suggesting what you just said at the very beginning, which is, let's finish. But if she has some supplement, then I would want to take a brief second deposition as it relates to any new diagnoses or opinions.
Mr. Jay responds on line 4: Okay. What I'm understanding her to say is right now, there has been a previous diagnosis of an adjustment disorder in some of the records and she just needs to review her records to see if she thinks that is the best diagnosis that she would give as opposed to a generalized anxiety disorder.
Then the witness says -- you essentially took that, Mr. Jay upside down, you got that backwards.
So we go on to page 42, line 1, Mr. Owens: I agree, I agree. And, Dr. Werner, just let the state attorney know --
THE COURT: But we're skipping a massive portion of 41 that addresses specifically opinions --
MR. OWENS: Let me go back.
THE COURT: -- as it relates to generalized anxiety disorder.
MR. OWENS: Okay. The witness starts on line 15: So she's saying she has the generalized anxiety disorder, and I'm saying I want to review it more.
Because Sarah Boone had disclosed to the doctor she had been previously diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder. And so Dr. Werner was considering that, that admission, but she was saying, I want to review it more to see if I think it's more of an adjustment disorder to being in jail, Judge. To being in a correctional setting right now and the stressors that she is under right now as opposed to a generalized anxiety disorder.
Mr. Jay says on line 22: Okay. So on this topic, if something new comes up, we can address it. But if you have other topics to depose her on, then I suggest we go on.
And then on page 42, line 1, that's when I say: I agree, I agree. And, Dr. Werner, just let the state attorney know. I know that you may be -- you know, we are short on time. If you do review your notes over the weekend or whatnot and formulate any other opinions, just let -- the state attorney and I will address it.
THE COURT: We'll address it.
MR. OWENS: We'll address it.
Line 7, the witness, Dr. Werner says: Absolutely.
And then -- do you want me to continue reading or --
THE COURT: If there's portions you want to highlight for me. I mean, I have the transcript, I'm following along with you.
MR. OWENS: So that's the general understanding that we have had about all diagnoses, all opinions that she may have.
And so she starts talking about the mental status exam that she gave her. And then she -- page 43, line 8, she said: She has narcissistic personality disorder traits. Or I asked that question. That's how she answered. She goes through a little bit of that.
And then paraphrasing, she talks about the grandiose component or criteria that she met. And then on page 45, I asked her: What other criteria -- line 1 -- would tend to indicate that she was a narcissist? And the answer by Dr. Werner: I didn't say that she was. I said that she has narcissistic traits and that was the example --
THE COURT: I'm very -- I understand that's what the depo reflects, but the non-objection, which led to objection, pertains to an opinion specifically about post-traumatic stress disorder. At this time, no opinion is being referenced nor does the call of the question pertain to narcissistic personality traits or a diagnosis of narcissism, the question pertains to PTSD.
MR. OWENS: Right. Page 46, line 1, question: Okay. Do you feel like she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder? Line 3, answer: She didn't give me criteria with regards to that. She discussed having feared anxiety of his family and fear that they could come into the jail or have someone else come into the jail and harm her. She talked about that. And she spoke about having recollections, remembering abuse from Jorge during the evaluation.
Question, 13 -- line 13 on 46: But you don't believe that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder in your opinion?
Answer, line 15: No. I would have to look through -- go back through my notes to see if she fully met the criteria.
Question, line 17: Can you explain why you don't think she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder?
Answer, line 19: No. I didn't say one way or the other. I would have to look back through my notes for that.
Line 21, question: Is that something that you may in the future give an opinion about after some time reflecting and reviewing your notes?
Line 24, answer: I may.
No. 25, question: Okay. And that's something you will let the lawyers know about if that changes?
Answer, line 2 of page 47: Yes. That's specific to the post-traumatic stress disorder.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. OWENS: So at the time of this deposition when IT asked her specifically --
THE COURT: So what's the legal objection? What are the legal grounds of the objection?
MR. OWENS: I would not take that deposition, Judge. When she said I have not had time sufficiently to answer these questions, these diagnoses, these opinions, if this wasn't set for a definitive date that you had already told me it's not going to be continued, I would not -- I would refuse to take that deposition. But under the promises from the State --
THE COURT: What are the legal -- what are the legal grounds of your objection? I'm familiar with the background, I'm familiar with the timeframe, I'm familiar with all the dates and the depos and the coordination and everything we had to do to get this all teed up before trial. What are the legal grounds of your objection? I understand the backdrop.
MR. OWENS: I don't know if there's a legal ground other than we had an agreement as attorneys, as parties that I would be notified of a change of opinion and I would be allowed to take a second deposition. That's the only thing I know to object to, because I was not given that opportunity, which was an agreement between the parties.
THE COURT: Response?
MR. JAY: Judge, I don't appreciate the implications that they're making. What I would proffer with this witness is -- we spoke yesterday. I asked her if she had any change in her opinion about any of the diagnoses, she said no. And I just -- I asked, well, then, my position -- my understanding of her position is that it doesn't matter whether she had PTSD or not, because what Ms. Boone said at the time was that she zipped Mr. Torres up into the suitcase, they were both laughing, and once he was already secured in the suitcase, she became angry and then did all the things that she did.
My expected answers from the doctor, based on a very brief conversation yesterday and this morning, was that if I asked her whether or not PTSD or BSS had anything to do with this particular case, that her answer would be, It doesn't matter because of what she stated happened.
TI'm not asking her about her diagnosis of PTSD. I'm not going to be going into narcissism. I'm not going to go into whether or not she ever delineated the difference between adjustment disorder or anxiety, because my understanding of what she told me was that none of this matters. None of this matters because of what she said to us during the evaluation.
THE COURT: But the question was, and I may have to ask madam court reporter to read it, but my memory of what the question was is, have you formulated an opinion with regard to PTSD.
MR. JAY: And my expected answer was, it doesn't matter because of what she said during the evaluation.
THE COURT: Okay. Unfortunately, that was not the answer that came from the witness. The answer was a definitive no.
THE COURT: I'm not casting blame. I'm just going back over what was asked and what was said.
MR. OWENS: Judge, and that's his position, that post-traumatic stress disorder, that doesn't apply in this case. And that he, I'm sure, reflected his opinion to the expert, but that doesn't mean that that's my opinion, that post-traumatic stress does not apply.
THE COURT: That's irrelevant for the purposes of this argument.