When mental health evidence manifests itself after trial, a new trial is logical.

Orndorff v. Commonwealth, April 21, 2006

Supreme Court of Virginia

628 S.E.2d 344, Record No. 051478

A defense team cannot be penalized for seeking another trial based on new mental health evidence if its experts failed to identify the evidence in the initial trial, this ruling suggests.

Janice Larue Orndorff contended that new evidence after her trial showed that she suffered from dissociative identity disorder--formerly known as multiple personality disorder--when she murdered her husband. On appeal, experts noted that the disorder cannot be identified until one of the "alter" personalities reveals itself, which apparently did not happen until after the trial.

The court of appeals had found that Orndorff did not meet the reasonable diligence requirement when seeking a new trial based on after-discovered evidence because her experts could have discovered the symptoms of the disorder earlier. The state Supreme Court disagreed with that ruling because it improperly shifted the focus of the reasonable diligence inquiry by effectively assigning to Orndorff's counsel the responsibility of reaching a different medical diagnosis. The reasonable diligence inquiry addresses the sufficiency of counsel's actions, not the actions of medical professionals retained by counsel, the court noted.

Two experts initially concluded at trial that Orndorff did not have a ...