Clisby v. Alabama

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, August 21, 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterAugust 21, 2000

    While Lyman and Halleck came to more significant diagnoses than antisocial personality disorder, Kirkland was unable to remove the lesser, personality-disorder diagnosis from his final conclusions. See Clisby v. Alabama, 26 F.3d 1054, 1056 & n.2 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting reasons why antisocial-personality- disorder diagnoses are not mitigating). And Dr. Rivenbark, the State's expert (a clinical psychologist) who examined Cade in 1990, fortified the conclusions of the trial experts by contradicting diagnoses of schizophrenia or delusional disorders and reporting indications that at least some of Cade's symptoms may have been the result of malingering.

  2. Capital Defense Weekly, August 14, 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterAugust 14, 2000

    While Lyman and Halleck came to more significant diagnoses than antisocial personality disorder, Kirkland was unable to remove the lesser, personality-disorder diagnosis from his final conclusions. See Clisby v. Alabama, 26 F.3d 1054, 1056 & n.2 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting reasons why antisocial-personality- disorder diagnoses are not mitigating). And Dr. Rivenbark, the State's expert (a clinical psychologist) who examined Cade in 1990, fortified the conclusions of the trial experts by contradicting diagnoses of schizophrenia or delusional disorders and reporting indications that at least some of Cade's symptoms may have been the result of malingering.