![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal
By COLIN POITRAS
The Hartford Courant
February 25, 2000MILFORD - In an extraordinary ruling believed to be the first of its kind in
Connecticut, a judge found Thursday that a high dosage of Prozac drove a
Wallingford man to commit a 1997 bank robbery.Superior Court Judge Richard E. Arnold acquitted Christopher DeAngelo, a
28-year-old insurance agent, because the defendant was unable to appreciate
that his actions were wrong.``This is not a case of somebody pulling a fast one,'' said defense attorney John
R. Williams, who argued that his client suffered from temporary insanity.
``These are hard, indisputable facts. This was someone who was driven to
commit crimes because of prescription drugs.''Arnold's 21-page ruling, which found DeAngelo innocent by reason of mental
defect or disability, appears to be rare nationwide. Claims based on Prozac use
have been raised but rejected in Kentucky, New York and Minnesota courts over
the past decade.DeAngelo was taking 60 mg of Prozac and a tranquilizer called Xanax to treat
depression and an obsessive-compulsive disorder, which one psychiatric
evaluation suggested may have been caused by Lyme disease.Williams claimed DeAngelo was taking two to three times the amount of Prozac
normally prescribed for a person in his condition when he robbed the First Union
Bank in Derby on Dec. 2, 1997.Three psychiatrists - including one hired by state prosecutors - backed up the
claim.The doctors agreed that DeAngelo's mental state probably was influenced by
the impairments brought on by Lyme disease coupled with an adverse reaction
to his medication. The psychiatrists said DeAngelo's mental state may also
have been affected by his family history of bipolar disorder and his abuse of
alcohol at the time he was taking the drugs.While Prozac and Xanax are commonly used to treat depression, psychiatrists
said the drugs, when taken together and in high doses, can have ``manic-like''
side effects.Had DeAngelo not been prescribed Prozac and Xanax, ``he would almost
certainly never have committed these crimes,'' said Dr. Peter Breggin, a
pyschiatric expert hired by the defense.Assistant State's Attorney Kevin Doyle praised the judge for issuing a clear and
thorough decision in a difficult case.``The issue here was that the defendant was overmedicated and because of his
unique history, that led him to have a manic attack,'' Doyle said.Doyle stressed that DeAngelo is not walking free after his acquittal Thursday by
reason of mental disease or defect.Arnold ordered him committed to the state Department of Mental Health and
Addiction Services for further evaluation. DeAngelo, who was previously free
after posting bail of more than $200,000, was taken to the Whiting Forensic
Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown pending his next court
appearance on April 6.Based on further evaluation, DeAngelo could be committed to Whiting, the
state's maximum-security mental hospital, for more than 20 years, housed in a
community- based treatment program for a lesser amount of time or discharged
on his own recognizance.DeAngelo's legal troubles didn't end Thursday. He still faces charges in
connection with the robberies of a bank, department store and gas station in
Wallingford a week before the Derby robbery.But those charges may become academic. Williams said New Haven
authorities have been waiting for the Milford ruling before deciding what action
they will take.Williams said the crime spree was an extraordinary departure for DeAngelo,
who had no prior criminal history.``This guy is so squeaky clean. He's one of those people who wouldn't even
jaywalk,'' Williams said.Attorneys on both sides of the case stressed that it was DeAngelo's
``involuntary intoxication'' from the medication that led to the unusual acquittal.Unlike a person who may voluntarily use cocaine and then commit a crime,
DeAngelo was following his doctors' orders and taking his prescribed medication
in prescribed doses, unaware of the potential side-effects, Williams said.Prozac is a widely used antidepressant that has been prescribed for more than
17 million Americans and is available in more than 100 countries, according to
the Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co., which manufactures the drug.Company spokesman Blair Austin said Thursday that it is not unusual for
criminal defendants to use any excuse to avoid prosecution. He denied Prozac
was to blame for DeAngelo's crimes.``Prozac did not in any way cause Christopher DeAngelo to commit these acts,''
Austin said. He called the judge's decision ``at odds'' with previous attempts by
defendants to use the so-called ``Prozac defense.''Indeed, DeAngelo is not the first person to try to use Prozac as a defense in a
criminal case.* In 1997, a Minnesota man claimed ``involuntary intoxication'' caused by a
mixture of alcohol, methamphetamine and Prozac led him to shoot his
estranged wife 11 times. A jury rejected the claim and Brad Voorhees was
convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.* In 1996, a man accused of two firebombings in the New York City subway
system blamed his behavior on a toxic combination of Prozac and other
prescription drugs. But Edward J. Leary's defense also failed and he was
convicted of 18 counts of attempted murder, assault and possession of a
weapon.* And in 1994, a Kentucky jury rejected a lawsuit in which survivors and victims
of a 1989 shooting rampage at a Louisville printing plant claimed Prozac caused
a former plant employee to turn homicidal. Joseph Wesbecker shot eight former
co-workers to death and wounded 12 others before killing himself.Eli Lilly and Co. has successfully defeated more than 70 complaints attempting
to link Prozac to violent behavior, according to past reports. Austin would not
say Thursday whether Arnold's ruling was a first.
Posted by vesper on March 3, 2000, at 1:48:30
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
Nothing in any of this suggests that the title "Prozac defense" is in any way appropriate. No one seems to have claimed that he or she was driven to actions resulting from the recommended dosage of prozac alone. It seems to always involve excessive dosage, combinations with other drugs, blah blah blah. While I find pharmaceutical companies detestable in many ways, I believe they are right on this. Personal responsibility is so devalued these days. I won't even START on the state of journalism these days. "Prozac defense," indeed. Humph.
Posted by Sherry on March 3, 2000, at 5:27:43
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
I have heard it all now. What is the world coming to?
Posted by Cam W. on March 3, 2000, at 6:49:41
In reply to Re: Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by Sherry on March 3, 2000, at 5:27:43
This shows why law is an art and medicine is a science. - Cam W.
Posted by Adam on March 3, 2000, at 10:19:44
In reply to Re: Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by Cam W. on March 3, 2000, at 6:49:41
It also shows how the information generated by scientific research, as well as forensic evidence, can be twisted by the unscrupulous and the ignorant. Most disturbingly, it is another example of the farcical nature of the judicial process as currently practiced in the US (not to say we're the worst, just that it ought to be better).
No suprise to see Peter Breggin among the professional witnesses. They way this man profits from pseudoscience, post hoc fallacy, the frailty of the mentally ill, and the ignorance of the general public is disgusting. If there were such a thing as justice, he would have spent all his ill-gotten cash on legal bills attempting to defend himself from liability. And he would have lost.
>
> This shows why law is an art and medicine is a science. - Cam W.
Posted by saint james on March 3, 2000, at 10:44:28
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
> Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal
>
> By COLIN POITRAS
> The Hartford Courant
> February 25, 2000
>
> MILFORD - In an extraordinary ruling believed to be the first of its kind in
> Connecticut, a judge found Thursday that a high dosage of Prozac drove a
> Wallingford man to commit a 1997 bank robbery.
>
James here....I agree with vesper that many things drove this man to commit a crime. I sure this case will be appealed. The majority of case law using this defence has been turned down.
j
Posted by kazoo on March 4, 2000, at 11:39:35
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
> > Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal
> >
> > By COLIN POITRAS
> > The Hartford Courant
> > February 25, 2000
> >
> > MILFORD - In an extraordinary ruling believed to be the first of its kind in
> > Connecticut, a judge found Thursday that a high dosage of Prozac drove a
> > Wallingford man to commit a 1997 bank robbery.
> >
>
>
> James here....
>
> I agree with vesper that many things drove this man to commit a crime. I sure this case will be appealed. The majority of case law using this defence has been turned down.
>
> j
And just who is going to appeal this case? Not the State of Connecticut!
They sided with the Defense and Judge!>Assistant State's Attorney Kevin Doyle praised the judge for issuing a clear and
>thorough decision in a difficult case.
>``The issue here was that the defendant was overmedicated and because of his
>unique history, that led him to have a manic attack,'' Doyle said.
>Attorneys on both sides of the case stressed that it was DeAngelo's
>``involuntary intoxication'' from the medication that led to the unusual acquittal.What I foresee next is big-time CIVIL LITIGATION for punitive damages against Mr. DeAngelo's
psychiatrist(s) and the Eli Lilly company. According to the State of Connecticut,
DeAngelo took a drug, or drugs, which made him do things he did not want to do, got him into
trouble and irreparably changed his life forever. What this translates for deep-pocket
lawyers is mucho-bucks! At this level, TORT, can the case be appealed, but as far as the
criminal aspect of the case being reversed, that's very much over.Trust me: I don't agree with this sort of thing, but I've learned to accept the way
society thinks. It's going to be a dark and stormy night for psychiatrists and drug
companies as a result of this piss-ant case!What a mess!
kazoo
Posted by Elizabeth on March 5, 2000, at 8:17:22
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
I don't agree 100% with my psych & law professor's opinion that the insanity defense should be abolished altogether. But it does seem like the existence of easily-bribed professional expert witnesses like Br*ggin who can use pseudoscience to twist any set of facts to suit their needs, combined with the shocking gullibility of some juries, results in acquittals or reduced sentences for persons who were in no way "insane."
This sort of fiasco is an affront to those who have experienced true psychotic episodes, and I'm afraid that one day it will be impossible for the truly insane to be found not guilty because the defense is so over-used.
Posted by PattyG on March 6, 2000, at 15:38:16
In reply to abuse of insanity defense, posted by Elizabeth on March 5, 2000, at 8:17:22
I don't agree 100% with my psych & law professor's opinion that the insanity defense should be abolished
altogether. But it does seem like the existence of easily-bribed professional expert witnesses like Br*ggin who can
use pseudoscience to twist any set of facts to suit their needs, combined with the shocking gullibility of some
juries, results in acquittals or reduced sentences for persons who were in no way "insane."///Hey guys.....(I suppose I'm going to be the ONLY one who believes in these instances!) What about the fact that the prosecutors selected a psychiatrist who also AGREED that the man had been adversely affected by the Prozac? Trust me, that is very, very rare (for the State's witness to, ultimately, testify for the defense!)I wonder if there's any way to actually get some *real* statistics regarding crimes committed and any relationship to medications (authorized.) I doubt we'd get it from the pharmaceutical companies! And just for the record, I do agree with regard to Peter Breggin - I think he's an idiot. (IMHO, of course.)
Posted by Ari on March 6, 2000, at 17:30:04
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
Prozac, Paxil and Celexa at very low doses, make me fantasize of stabbing, shooting or harming people. Even my own child and husband. It only takes about 3 days at half the recommended dose for these images/thoughts to start showing up. First time was lucky had been put on 20 mg of Prozac and then upped to 40 mg...knew enough to put myself in the hospital knowing that this was not normal. Opens up pathways I dont want to go down. I dont even spank my kids.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 7, 2000, at 21:44:21
In reply to abuse of insanity defense, posted by Elizabeth on March 5, 2000, at 8:17:22
> I don't agree 100% with my psych & law professor's opinion that the insanity defense should be abolished altogether. But it does seem like the existence of easily-bribed professional expert witnesses like Br*ggin who can use pseudoscience to twist any set of facts to suit their needs, combined with the shocking gullibility of some juries, results in acquittals or reduced sentences for persons who were in no way "insane."
>
> This sort of fiasco is an affront to those who have experienced true psychotic episodes, and I'm afraid that one day it will be impossible for the truly insane to be found not guilty because the defense is so over-used.
I wish to state a fact and an opinion.First, the opinion: I do believe that the "insanity" defense has a place in our justice system, and is an important protection for those of us who are for some reason caught in a state of altered consciousness. Of course it can be abused, just like any other “loop-hole” the government makes available. These represent opportunities to take advantage of, and it is a defense attorney’s job to take advantage of them. I agree with much of Elizabeth’s appraisal of the situation. However, I believe more responsibility must be placed on the judges, for they are to provide the guide upon which the jury must base their decisions. It is the judge who must define the word “insanity”, and what it comprises, as discreet legal definitions and principals. Otherwise, the decision of whether or not a person can be held responsible for their actions may be little more that an expression of a juror’s passions.
Secondly, a fact: Antidepressants are PSYCHOTROPICS – they change the psyche. I know for fact that antidepressants can precipitate suicidality. Scott + moclobemide = suicidality.
Not fact: There must certainly be a neurochemical substrate for suicidality if it can be induced “artificially”. It can. So must there be a neurochemical substrate for psychotic aggression, for it too can be induced through the application of foreign agents. I’ll let the psychopharmacologists among us list them. I believe Prozac to be one such agent.
- Scott
Posted by judy on March 8, 2000, at 13:24:34
In reply to Re: abuse of insanity defense, posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 7, 2000, at 21:44:21
Am I the only one on this forum who went into a psychotic manic episode while taking prozac (without a mood stabilizer in place)? Believe me, if not hospitalized, I was totally capable of criminal acts. I think this is a valid defense, and only people who have not been through something like this would be so quick to condemn.
Posted by Lynne on March 8, 2000, at 13:57:44
In reply to Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by kazoo on March 3, 2000, at 0:50:43
I don't know about these crimes that I would think would require premeditation, but when I was put on prozac the first time, I was put on a full dose suddenly, and I had mood swings so severe that I was glad I was off work for two weeks, otherwise I feel I could easily have hurt one or more of the pets I would have been grooming. i was not used to having anger or rage jump up so quickly and easily and I don't know if I would have been able to control myself fast enough had I been in a situation where I could injure. It was pretty unnerving. not to mention I was buzzing so badly I couldn't remember the beginning of my sentenses by the time I got to the end of them.
just my two cent's worth.
Lynne
Posted by mcman on March 8, 2000, at 15:23:32
In reply to Re: Prozac Defense Brings Acquittal, posted by Lynne on March 8, 2000, at 13:57:44
For those who are not bipolar, please listen: An antidepressant can send a person who is bipolar into a manic or psychotic state where anything is possible. People who are bipolar generally require a mood stabilizer to be taken in conjunction with an antidepressant. I had the experience of being misdiagnosed as depressive, prescribed an antidepressant, and two days later I was in orbit. As to what is possible in a manic or psychotic state, we tend to be pretty good at wrecking our lives, and in light of some of the things we have done, robbing a bank is not some crazy idea. Consider the facts of the case: He was an insurance agent. His family had a history of bipolar. He had been prescribed three times the usual dosage. Now I realize that Prozac and other antidepressants have been lifesavers for many of you, but you need to know that for certain people they can present a horrible and unexpected danger. I for one applaud Judge Arnold for his sensitive and courageous decision. I also condemn the Hartford Courant who in their March 3 editorial demonstrated profound ignorance in what they saw as another example of a "Twinkie defense."
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 8, 2000, at 20:35:12
In reply to Re: abuse of insanity defense, posted by judy on March 8, 2000, at 13:24:34
> Am I the only one on this forum who went into a psychotic manic episode while taking prozac (without a mood stabilizer in place)? Believe me, if not hospitalized, I was totally capable of criminal acts. I think this is a valid defense, and only people who have not been through something like this would be so quick to condemn.
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Judy,
I think the way I composed my post was confusing and probably misleading. When I wrote "Not fact", I was trying to be witty (dumb) in expressing the fact that what I was about to write was indeed not a fact, but an opinion. I actually do consider what I wrote to be manifestly fact, and your post, unfortunately, is a testimonial of living proof.
I am very, VERY happy that you decided to post both your personal account of your experiences and your personal opinions. It has become obvious in this thread that such a reaction to antidepressants is not as rare as some would like to believe.
- Scott--------------------------------------------------
> > Not fact: There must certainly be a neurochemical substrate for suicidality if it can be induced "artificially". It can. So must there be a neurochemical substrate for psychotic aggression, for it too can be induced through the application of foreign agents. I'll let the psychopharmacologists among us list them. I believe Prozac to be one such agent.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 8, 2000, at 20:46:14
In reply to Re: abuse of insanity defense - a clarification, posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 8, 2000, at 20:35:12
> > Am I the only one on this forum who went into a psychotic manic episode while taking prozac (without a mood stabilizer in place)? Believe me, if not hospitalized, I was totally capable of criminal acts. I think this is a valid defense, and only people who have not been through something like this would be so quick to condemn.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> I think the way I composed my post was confusing and probably misleading. When I wrote "Not fact", I was trying to be witty (dumb) in expressing the fact that what I was about to write was indeed not a fact, but an opinion. I actually do consider what I wrote to be manifestly fact, and your post, unfortunately, is a testimonial of living proof.
>
> I am very, VERY happy that you decided to post both your personal account of your experiences and your personal opinions. It has become obvious in this thread that such a reaction to antidepressants is not as rare as some would like to believe.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Not fact: There must certainly be a neurochemical substrate for suicidality if it can be induced "artificially". It can. So must there be a neurochemical substrate for psychotic aggression, for it too can be induced through the application of foreign agents. I'll let the psychopharmacologists among us list them. I believe Prozac to be one such agent.
----------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah... And let me further opine that such psychotic aggressive reactions are not limited to bipolar disorder.
- Scott
Posted by Elizabeth on March 10, 2000, at 10:21:00
In reply to Re: abuse of insanity defense, posted by judy on March 8, 2000, at 13:24:34
> Am I the only one on this forum who went into a psychotic manic episode while taking prozac (without a mood stabilizer in place)?
I had a mixed episode with psychotic features on Effexor, not Prozac. I wasn't nearly organized enough to have pulled off an act that requires as much planning as a bank robbery (even if I had tried to do something like that, it would have been obvious that I was "out there" by my incoherence). I wonder exactly what this bank robbery consisted of -- did he just take a gun from his closet or whatever, go into a bank, and say, "give me all your money," or did he do some planning? What exactly are they talking about when they claim he didn't know what he was doing was wrong? Was his act the result of delusional thinking, and if so what was his delusion? If not, why were the expert witnesses claiming psychosis?
I don't know the details of your episode so it's hard for me to say whether I think it would be grounds for an acquittal on the grounds of insanity, had you done something that had brought you in contact with the criminal justice system.
> Believe me, if not hospitalized, I was totally capable of criminal acts.
Uhh, I think we're all "capable of criminal acts" pretty much all the time. Do you think there is some special intrinsic feature of "criminal acts" that differentiates them from other acts?
> I think this is a valid defense, and only people who have not been through something like this would be so quick to condemn.
I think it can be, but it is abused so often that the insanity defense has a lot less credibility than it should.
It *is* possible to be psychologically affected by a drug (or a mental disorder) without being legally insane, after all.
Posted by Elizabeth on March 10, 2000, at 10:28:22
In reply to Re: abuse of insanity defense, posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 7, 2000, at 21:44:21
> First, the opinion: I do believe that the "insanity" defense has a place in our justice system, and is an important protection for those of us who are for some reason caught in a state of altered consciousness.
Oh yeah, I do too. But I think that if it keeps being abused, we could lose it altogether (in favor, e.g., of the absurd "guilty but insane").
> However, I believe more responsibility must be placed on the judges, for they are to provide the guide upon which the jury must base their decisions.
True. They also need to keep the expert witnesses in line. ;-)
> Not fact: There must certainly be a neurochemical substrate for suicidality if it can be induced “artificially”. It can. So must there be a neurochemical substrate for psychotic aggression, for it too can be induced through the application of foreign agents. I’ll let the psychopharmacologists among us list them. I believe Prozac to be one such agent.
There isn't any one substrate for "psychotic aggression" (or psychotic guilt, grandeur, paranoia, etc.), but Prozac
However, just because a reaction was associated with Prozac (in this guy's case it's impossible to tell the "cause" -- Prozac? Xanax? Lyme disease? Just needed the $?), doesn't mean that it was a psychotic reaction (or that the individual has *no* responsibility for his actions).
Posted by judy on March 10, 2000, at 13:36:30
In reply to Re: abuse of insanity defense - a clarification, posted by Scott L. Schofield on March 8, 2000, at 20:35:12
I truly appreciate the time you took to post what you were actually feeling. I guess I'm naive sometimes when I think that people who suffer from mental disorders are more compassionate to others who suffer. Thank you for being so open. Take care.
Posted by judy on March 10, 2000, at 20:16:34
In reply to To Scott, posted by judy on March 10, 2000, at 20:14:06
For some reason I'm having all kinds of trouble with my posts- is it me or the forum? Please don't say it's me.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.