</s>or (2) where although the psychiatric testimony is in conflict, none of it is addressed to the ultimate question of capacity for mature and meaningful reflection, and the conduct of the defendant during and subsequent to the commission of the offense was bizarre and uncharacteristic of his usual behavior, or (3) where there is no real conflict in the psycho- tric testimony because the conclusions of the psychoia- tristis supporting the finding of requisite mental capacity do not constitute substantial evidence in light of the psychiatrist's failure to take into account significant material, their significant in- clusion of extracaneous matter, or their employment of self-contradictory or faulty reasoning processes. Respondent submits that appellant has failed to bring his case within the holdings of the afore- mentioned cases and that his conviction of first-degree murder passes muster under the principles established therein. The defense's psychiatric and psychological evidence, previously set forth at length (at pp. 66- 107, infra), will not be repeated here except by way of an outline of the expert testimony bearing on the specific issue of appellant's capacity for maturity 179. 2025 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176

John F. Kennedy, assassination, investigations, related individuals and events:

* Appellant's mental capacity to commit murder with malice aforethought was examined by two psychologists and two psychiatrists, but their testimony was characterized by self-contradiction, improper exclusion or inclusion of material, and faulty reasoning.
* Dr. Marcus testified that appellant lacked the requisite mental capacity, but had inconsistencies in his own testimony; Dr. Diamond also had a biased view of the case and refused to consider certain factors relevant to the issue of diminished capacity.
* The non-clinical evidence in the case, including the purchase of the murder weapon, statements of intention, notes, and conduct prior to and during the assassination, lent further support to the conclusion that appellant had the capacity to harbor malice aforethought and deliberate meaningfully upon the gravity of the contemplated act.
* Adel Sirhan gave valid consent to the search of the house, including appellant's bedroom; the officers reasonably believed that Adel had authority to grant permission for the search.
* The trial court properly concluded that the officers who searched the Sirhan residence obtained a valid consent from Adel Sirhan; the resolution of conflicting evidence presented at a hearing on motion to suppress evidence involving the issue of consent to search lies with the superior court and will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence supporting the finding of that court.
* People v. Egan, cited case supporting respondent's position on consent to search, noting defendant's stepfather had no possession right or control over a "kit bag".
* February 1: Other cases cited by applicant are distinguishable.
* February 4: Id., 4/4; similarly, 2d 173, an informer v. Murillo, 241 Cal. App. 2d 173, upheld the right of the informant to consent to a search of the defendant's attaché case.
* People v. Linked: Upheld a wife's consent to a search of a home in the absence of her husband.
* Stoner v. California: Held that the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are not to be eroded by strained applications.
* Vandenberg v. Superior Court: Upheld the search of a bedroom occupied jointly by the defendant and his father, despite the request of the defendant.
* Chapman v. United States: Cited case on a landlord's right to entry.
* People v. Stentown: Held that consent given by an officer to search for property known to belong to one of the other occupants is valid.
* Heeves (with Cir. 1965): Dictum stating that only the occupant of a room could consent to a search of that room, which was deemed clearly erroneous.
* February 25, 2025 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176: No additional information provided.

RFK Declassified Files

62-hq-587_sec_047_ser_1279_only-part_5_of_7.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search