"Oliver" and "Raymond": Dissociative Identity Disorder as a Psychiatric Defense to Murder: Part II

After numerous consultations between Dr. Levin and Oliver/Raymond, many

meetings and telephone discussions between Dr. Levin and I and many hours of client consultations in person and by video-conference, it was time for Oliver to decide what course of action he wanted to take.

There were two options:  going to trial or negotiating a plea.  While we would prefer a plea that involved a long-term civil commitment to a psychiatric facility, that was a long shot based upon the facts and circumstances of the case.  If we could not obtain a psychiatric commitment, we hoped to obtain a sentence that would allow Oliver to eventually be released from prison and live out his old age as a free man.  The probability was that Oliver would be convicted if he went to trial.  A conviction on the two murder and related charges would almost certainly result in an aggregate sentence of approximately sixty to life, depending upon how you computed the term.  And even after he served the minimum term, Oliver would have to appear before a parole board that would almost certainly turn down his request for parole.  Since he was approaching his fifth decade of life, Oliver had no realistic chance of living out a term of sixty to life, a truly sad prospect indeed.

As mentioned in part I of this article, the assistant district attorney handling the case was inflexible and famous for never showing any compassion for defendants, even under such tragic circumstances as faced Oliver.  He categorically rejected the possibility of a plea where the defendant would be placed in a psychiatric facility.  He wanted blood and in the absence of a death penalty, I suppose that his next-best thing was as many years as possible.

The case law surrounding D.I.D. was far from favorable.  Essentially, where the primary personality had alter-egos who committed heinous acts, the fact remained that the hands (or feet or whatever) of the defendant were the hands that committed the crimes complained of.  While there were occasional victories for D.I.D. defendants, the prognosis was guarded at best and it seemed that the smart money would bet on convictions on all counts.  The judge handling the case was not known as a jurist who was sympathetic to defendants, even defendants with serious psychiatric problems.  A sentence of fifty or sixty years meant that Oliver/Raymond would certainly die in jail.  My client was truly between a rock and a hard spot. 

The Hobson's choice was a slightly reduced plea offer of a straight thirty-five year sentence that meant he would have to serve a total sentence of thirty years, less the two he had already served while awaiting trial.  That would give him freedom at the age of seventy-eight, if he lives that long. 

He took the plea.

.