-112-
you can see that what the specialist told you fits right
in.
Now Members of the Jury, the
psychiatrist's expert
opinion as to the accused's personality and his mental
make-up is relevant and useful to you to consider.
That is the specialist's field, it's a scientific field.
But Members of the Jury, as the judges of the facts,
you can draw your conclusions as well, on the proven
facts and on the things that you have seen here, because
that is your province. The scientific part of the expert's
evidence is relevant, and you have to take that, because
you have no knowledge of the scientific side.
On the factual side, a jury will not need a psychia-
trist to tell them how people react to the stress and
strains of life if they have no mental abnormality.
That's a situation that will fall into your laps as
the jury in this case. If there is no mental abnormality
the reaction to stress and strain of people in the world
is a matter for the jury and is therefore a matter for
you.
Now mental retardation Members of the Jury, you will
have seen many a person in your life time who is mentally
retarded, and you have seen different conditions of
mental retardation. Some people who are mentally retarded
are mainly idiots. In this case I think it is safe to
say that the accused is not an idiot, because he gave
sensible evidence, he could recall everything, so he is
not an idiot, he is not that class of mentally retarded,
but the psychiatrist tells you that in his assessment
5
10
15
20
25