Sanity remains an issue

According to this report, Emphasis added

The opinion of a psychiatrist who testified that convicted murderer Richard Robert Russo was sane when he killed his wife has little merit because he never interviewed the defendant, an attorney for the defense argued Thursday.

During cross-examination in the sanity phase of Russo's trial, attorney Mark Overland questioned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Kaushal Sharma's ability to evaluate Russo.

"This is a man described as functioning as a stockbroker with a seven-figure income who goes to work every day," Sharma countered. "That doesn't sound like a person who is out of it."

Former stockbroker Russo was convicted last week of first-degree murder in the shooting death of his wife, Carmen, 42, last summer. He then barricaded himself and the couple's two sleeping children, then 6 and 11, in their home in the early morning hours of Aug. 30, 2005. The couple lived in Arcadia's exclusive Santa Anita Oaks neighborhood.

Russo, then a senior vice president at Smith Barney in Pasadena, kept police at bay for more than seven hours, authorities said. Russo has been held without bail since the incident. He now faces about 50 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Sharma said he went to the jail to interview Russo in the spring, and the man refused to speak to Sharma without his attorney present.

"I consider that a damn good attempt to interview him," Sharma said during the rather hostile exchange with Overland.

Overland read from a document called the "Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry," which said that opinions expressed by those who have not personally examined a patient are "limited."

Overland also asked neuropsychologist Dr. Roger Light back to the stand to refute Sharma's opinion that an interview is least important when determining a person's sanity. Light had testified in court Wednesday.

Light called an interview "the essential component" required in order to determine a person's mood, presentation, style and responses.

"I don't understand how you can do any evaluation without the person in front of you," Light said.

However, Sharma said that in the time that passes between when a defendant commits a crime and when he or she is interviewed by a mental health professional, that person could have learned from other inmates "how to fool a psychiatrist."

He added that the defendant may have also spoken to an attorney about what to say when being interviewed by a doctor.

"They may have a higher likelihood to say things that are self-serving, that are outright lies or rehearsed," he explained.

Sharma said that while he believed there was sufficient evidence to prove Russo was depressed at the time of the murder, he thought Russo was acting out of anger, not from the effects of a mental illness, when he killed his wife.

Closing arguments continue today.