A psychologist gave testimony before DC Superior Court Judge Andrea Hertzfeld on Aug. 1 regarding her 2023 report that found a stabbing defendant competent to stand trial while malingering in his representations of incompetence.
Davon Hodge, 29, is charged with aggravated assault knowingly, carrying a pistol without a license outside of a home or business, and unlawful possession of contraband into a penal institution. The charges stem from his alleged involvement in the stabbing of an incarcerated individual at the DC Jail on the 1900 block of D Street, SE, on Jan. 18, 2023.
The prosecution called a psychologist employed by the DC Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) at Saint Elizabeths Hospital as an expert witness. She conducted a mental competency evaluation of Hodge in August of 2023.
The witness said Hodge was held at at the hospital 30 days for observation. His evaluation was based on records of his behavior made by medical staff during that period and by staff at DC Jail during his preceding period of detention there. It was also based on the witness’ interviews about Hodge, the results of diagnostic tests conducted by other clinicians, and the recordings of jail calls Hodge made that the witness reviewed.
The witness said Hodge was sent to Saint Elizabeths to have his mental competency evaluated because his attorney, Seth Schrager, was concerned that he couldn’t understand the judicial process well enough to participate in his own defense.
According to the witness, Hodge had reported auditory hallucinations to the medical clinician at the DC Jail. He received antipsychotic medication on the basis of his self-report, even though the clinician didn’t see in Hodge’s behavior that is typical of people experiencing hallucinations.
The witness said one goal of her evaluation was to rule out malingering, which was suspected by another psychologist who evaluated Hodge before she did. The witness explained malingering as feigning symptoms of mental illness, or feigning lack of cognitive ability or legal knowledge, in order to accomplish a desired result.
The witness stated in her report she had determined he was a malingerer. One reason for this finding was that Hodge described auditory hallucinations but wasn’t observed by any medical staff as experiencing that phenomenon.
Another reason was that the symptoms he described didn’t match the symptoms usually experienced by individuals suffering with mental illness. Additionally, his jail calls showed he understood the judicial process in ways he wouldn’t admit to during interviews.
In one jail call the witness reviewed, Hodge said he wanted to stay at Saint Elizabeths instead of going to DC Jail. He reported that the witness had found him competent to stand trial, but his attorney was finding a different doctor who he hoped would help keep him institutionalized.
In interviews with the witness, Hodge replied, “I don’t know,” to questions about basic legal information, such as the name of his defense attorney or who was the defendant in his case. The witness said, in her experience evaluating hundreds of defendants, even those with severe mental illness could usually answer such questions.
The prosecutor asked the witness to comment on an evaluation of Hodge produced by a psychologist hired by the defense.
The witness said the other psychologist didn’t state a determination of whether Hodge was competent. In parts of her evaluation, she reported behaviors by Hodge that she identified as malingering, but she didn’t make a formal finding of malingering.
According to the witness, the other psychologist concluded that Hodge receive medication to stabilize his symptoms of mental illness. The witness found the recommendation puzzling because Hodge was already on medication at the time of the evaluation, and no one, not even to the other psychologist, observed him to be symptomatic.
In cross-examination, Schrager confirmed with the witness that it’s possible for a defendant to be both incompetent and malingering at the same time.
Schrager pointed out that the diagnostic tests for malingering that the witness cited in her evaluation of Hodge are considered screening tests. On their own, they don’t prove a defendant is malingering. Schrager mentioned other tests that are used to detect malingering and noted that Hodge hadn’t received those.
The witness responded that all tests for malingering must be combined with other evidence, such as interviews, observations, and jail calls, in order to arrive at a reliable determination.
Schrager confirmed with the witness that psychologists are not permitted by law to share the raw data from their tests with anyone but other psychologists trained in administering those tests. He asked for the witness and the psychologist he hired to share their raw data from Hodge with each other.
The witness said she didn’t personally administer any tests and didn’t receive the raw data from the clinicians who administered them. She only read the test scores and the clinicians’ summaries. According to the witness, sharing the raw data would require a subpoena.
The prosecutor objected because subpoenaing the raw data would take more time, and cases become more difficult to prosecute.
Schrager said he would check with the psychologist he hired to see if she thought sharing the raw data was necessary. She is scheduled to testify at the next hearing in this case.
Parties are set to reconvene on Sept. 5.
