The Case of John du Pont - Essay Example

The Case of John du Pont s 30 March The Case of John du Pont 0 Background Information John du Pont was regardedas one of the richest murder defendants to go on trial in the history of USA, following his court trial in 1997. Du Pont was accused of shooting and killing David Schultz, a wrestler who had been living on his expansive estate located in the suburban Philadelphia. On 26th January, 1997, it is reported that John du Pont drove to the home belonging to David Schultz, located on the edge of his (du Pont’s) 800-acre estate where Schultz and his family were residing. On this trip, John du Pont was accompanied by his bodyguard and security expert, Patrick Goodale. Upon arrival at Schultz’s residence, he found Schultz training at the wrestling facilities that du Pont had set up in his estate. Schultz greeted his boss from where du Pont returned by asking him whether he had any problem with him. After this brief exchange, it is reported that du Pont pointed his 44-caliber revolver towards Schultz and shot him thrice, once at the arm and twice at his chest. This resulted in the instant death of David Schultz. A key witness to this act was Schultz wife, Nancy Schultz, who rushed out of the house upon hearing the first gun shot and upon arrival at the scene, she saw du Pont trigger his last shot at the already lying Schultz. It is also reported that du Pont also pointed the gun at her as well as at his bodyguard, Patrick Goodale after the shoot-out (Fersch, 2005, p. 151). After John du Pont had completed the act, he retreated to his large mansion where he spent the next 48 hours in an attempt to avoid being caught by the police. Inside his mansion, he had access to his large gun collection and other armories that he had acquired over his powerful years. The two-day standoff at his “Foxcatcher Farm” ended after he was lured outside by the police in order to make amends to the houses heating system which had tactically been switched off by the police. John du Pont was finally apprehended on 28 January, 1996, and his case opened in order to pave a way for investigations and subsequent trial. 2.0 The Case The case implicating John du Pont to the murder of David Schultz started on 9 February, 1996 after the trial court ordered a competency examination of the appellant. The competency examination was completed on 9 September 1996 concluding that John du Pont was incompetent to proceed with the trial. This resulted in John du Pont being remanded to the Norristown State Hospital where he underwent treatment. John du Pont was found to be competent for procession to trial in December, 1996, and thus his trial commenced in January the following year (Fersch, 2005). In his trial, John du Pont did not dispute the charges that he had shot and killed Mr. Schultz. Instead, the appellant tabled a defense of insanity which would allow him to be tried on the basis of not guiltyon grounds of insanity. This would prompt that the appellant be considered to have been insane and thus committed the offense unknowingly thereby seeking a verdict of “not guilty”. However, this was disputed by the prosecution who opined that the appellant was guilty because he was only suffering from a mere mental illness. According to the law in Pennsylvania, a defendant can be deemed guilty but mentally ill, although, in such a case, the defendant must undergo a treatment for the respective mental illness. If deemed cured by the jury, the defendant is eligible to serving a prison sentence. In the case of insanity, the defendant is allowed to go free once they are cured of their illness. 3.0 John du Pont’s Case analysis by psychiatrists For the week running from 26 January 1996, the court was listening to testimonies and inputs from the dueling doctors in the case. The prosecution was represented by two doctors (psychiatrists) John O’Brien and Paul Dietz while a third Paul Appelbaum represented the defense. The testimony lasted for 13 days with 43 witnesses providing their accounts of the murder case. The three psychiatrists were considered key witnesses in the case since their testimonies would help to unravel the question “what exactly was the defendant’s mental state at the time he committed the offense?”. Clarity and knowledge of this would provide the direction to which the case would follow especially with various grounds available for the trial. The three key findings probable and open to the jury at the time of making a verdict would be, guilty, not guilty, guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity. Therefore, a convincing finding from either the prosecution or the defense team regarding the mental health of John du Pont during the time of committing the offense would be influential in the verdict that the court would take. 4.0 The Prosecution’s case A mutually accepted basis of the case by both the prosecution and defense was that du Pont was paranoid and delusional. The point of contention, however, was on the cause of these delusions and what role they had in the murder of Schultz. The prosecution’s case summed it up that John du Pont was mentally ill, but he was cognizant of his actions in the murder of David Schultz and was thus guilty. As such, both prosecution side’s doctors O’Brien and Dietz supported this claims by tabling various evidences and details (Huddleston, 2013) O’Brien claimed that du Pont’s problems had resulted from his substance abuse which subsequently led to his well-documented odd behavior as observed by numerous people living around him. He cites one of the regular wrestlers who visited du Pont’s wrestling facilities who claimed that du Pont had been a cocaine user in the period running from 1988 and late 1995. OBrien also distanced himself from labeling du Pont as a paranoid schizophrenic, instead opting to describe him as someone whose beliefs are fixed and which do not change. On the other hand, Dietz attributed du Pont’s actions in the murder offense to his growing animosity towards Schultz. He observed that du Pont had started threatening Schultz as time went by in a growing animosity that could be traced from various pointers. Dietz observed that du Pont had become angry at Schultz following his friendship with Dan Chaid among other wrestlers that he (du Point) disliked. He also cited the incidence where Schultz had provided a counter report to the police regarding an occasion where du Pont had reported that he had suffered a baseball-bat attack. In the counter report, Schultz is reported as having claimed that the injury incurred by du Point was as a result of a fall after a drunken incidence. In another twist of the theories, Dietz claimed that du Pont had started growing uneasy and insecure with the budding closeness that Schultz was forming with his fellow wrestler Valentin Jordanov. According to Dietz, du Pont had an interest in the wrestler whom they had started fostering a relationship and thus Schultz was seen as a threat to this. In attempt to confirm the correlation in this, it is alleged that the day du Pont killed Schultz coincided with the Jordanov’s birthday. In a show of support to the influence of du Pont’s mental state in his commitment of the offense, Dietz acknowledged that he believed that du Pont’s actions were driven by anger attributed to his psychosis. However, Dietz was quick to add that the actions of du Pont were in part based on reality. For example, Dietz claimed that du Pont was well aware that his actions at his estate were increasingly causing anxiety among the wrestlers as well as the wrestling officials at his wrestling facility. According to various testimonies provided, du Pont was growing more defensive upon the knowledge that there was an internal conspiracy plan that was being hatched in his facility in an attempt to diminish his influence in the wrestling sport. He, therefore, saw the elimination of Schultz as a way of removing his threat to positions of power that he dearly held to himself. Dietz also observed an anomaly in du Pont’s behavior in regard to his decision to arm himself on the day of committing the crime. This, according to Dietz was unusual especially having been on his estate. Dietz’s observation was that du Pont was aware that he intended to kill that day which is what he exactly did. 5.0 Defense case On his defense, Paul Appelbaum, the defense doctor, downplayed the importance of involving cocaine and any substance abuse in the case. Appelbaum claimed that du Pont’s mental symptoms were still present long before his alleged commencement of substance abuse as well as during the arrest period. He also noted that the fact that du Pont’s delusions had lessened clearly showed that he had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenics. Appelbaum also complained that the prosecution doctors had rejected most of the theories that went against their stand during their interviews with du Pont. In an attempt to support his stand on the insane status of du Pont, he posed a rhetoric by asking if any sane human would take with him an eyewitness to the scene of his murderous act which in this case he referred to Goodale’s presence in du Pont’s car at the time of his shooting. He also defended du Pont from the claims by both Dietz and O’Brien that by him (du Pont) refusing entrance to police after he had shot Schultz was a sign that he recognized his wrongdoing. Appelbaum, in defense, claimed that this was a show of absolute loss of touch with the reality. 6.0 The Verdict Following the three-week of testimony, the jurors concluded on 25 February 1996, that du Pont was guilty of a third-degree murder although maintained that he was mentally ill (but not insane). Delaware County Common Pleas Court judge, Patricia Jenkins added that in the course of his custody, John du Pont would be treated for the paranoid delusions that were seen as the source of his violent outbursts. After listening to the accounts of the 43 witnesses involved, the juror evidently struggled to come up with an agreed conclusion to this case, finally settling on the verdict that du Pont had acted on malice but not on premeditation. According to most observers, the verdict was quite lenient to du Pont as he had evaded the much-dreaded life sentence. John du Point was finally sentenced to prison for 13 to 30 years but did not complete his sentence, dying in 2010 at the age of 72 years (Huddleston, 2013). References Fersch, E. A. (2005). Thinking about the insanity defense: Answers to frequently asked questions with case examples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Huddleston, T. (2013). Wrestling With Madness: John E. Du Pont and the Foxcatcher Farm Murder. Anaheim, CA: Minute Help Press. Read More