�鶹��Ƶ

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — Just because a person is smart doesn’t mean he isn’t mentally ill.

Judge Carlos Samour, Jr. made this point clear Wednesday, Day 7 of the Aurora theater shooting trial. All morning, prosecutors tried to prove defendant James Holmes’ intellect as a means of establishing his sanity on the night of July 20, 2012, when Holmes opened fire at the Century 16 theater in Aurora.

Samour acknowledged that intelligence alone wasn’t proof of sanity. “But intellect,” he reminded the court, “is an important issue in this case.” 

Prosecutors, led by District Attorney George Brauchler, sought testimony Wednesday from two professors who mentored Holmes during his year as a Ph.D. student at the �鶹��Ƶ.

But before Brauchler began his questioning, defense attorneys objected to presentation slides and email exchanges Brauchler wanted to submit as evidence.

Public defender Rebekka Higgs argued that the materials, which demonstrate the complex neuroscience research the defendant completed as a student, were irrelevant. She accused the prosecution of a “fundamental misunderstanding that somebody cannot be smart and yet mentally ill.”

Samour overruled her objection, but it represents a major question jurors must contend with in assessing the defendant’s insanity plea: Does planning negate psychosis?

“That goes right to the root of what they have to decide,” former state public defender David Kaplan said in an interview after the day’s testimony.

Jurors now know that the defendant was intelligent. He studied neuroscience, got good grades and planned out his attack on the theater well in advance.

“The hurdle is that they have to get over the intuitive feeling that planning is the opposite of psychosis,” Kaplan said.

A disappointing student

CU Anschutz professors Acham Klug and Mark Dell’Acqua, who mentored the defendant in the first and second of three lab rotations the completed in graduate school, described a student with an impressive resume and a lackluster work ethic.

Though he excelled as an undergraduate, the defendant struggled to summon the motivation and time management skills required for success in grad school. Klug said he was “disinterested” during his first lab rotation. Dell’Acqua gave him a “B” in his second, a grade too low to merit further thesis work in the lab.

Under the prosecution’s questioning, both Klug and Dell’Acqua recalled a student who was bright but unmotivated, adept at test taking but socially awkward. During both lab rotations, the defendant did little research until just before his final presentation, they said.

Neither professor noted a significant change in the defendant’s personality over the year.

His jokes fell flat

During cross examination, the defense focused on abnormalities in the defendant’s personality. They cited his inappropriate use of humor during a final school presentation in a class.

Through their questions, both sides made their intentions clear. The prosecution wanted the defendant to appear sane and predictable. The defense attempted to show his eccentricities and academic decline.

It was a juror who asked the most direct question: “Did he ever seem disconnected from reality?”

“The answer is clearly no,” Klug said.

The courtroom heard testimony from two more victims and five members of law enforcement this afternoon. The trial will resume Thursday at 8:30 a.m.

UPDATE: Juror who knew victim stays

Juror 737 remains on the jury after surprising the court this afternoon with startling news: he knows one of the victims.

Moments after witness Alex Espinoza took the stand, Judge Samour stopped court and excused the witness and the jury.  Only Juror 737 remained. He told Samour that he and Espinoza, who was shot in the arm in shooting, are “new friends.” He said they didn’t know each other yet during individual questioning.

Samour told the juror to consider whether his relationship with Espinoza would affect his ability to remain impartial. After a short break to think about it, the juror admitted that although he does feel an emotional connection to Espinoza, it won’t sway his decision.

The judge decided to let him remain on the jury.

“I am convinced that after thinking about it, he is comfortable and confident in his ability to be fair and impartial in this trial,” he said.

Espinoza returned to the stand and testified. Juror 737 and his wife are both forbidden from having any contact with the Espinozas for the remainder of the trial.