Dissociative Identity Disorder in the Courtroom

Janice Larue and Goering Orndorff married in 1993. By 2000, the marriage had begun to unravel. Suspecting that her husband was unfaithful, Ms. Orndorff consulted a divorce attorney and told her mother-in-law that she “would see him dead before he left her for another woman” (Orndorff v. Commonwealth, 628 S.E.2d 344 (Va. 2006)). Given her professions of love at other times, the mother-in-law was not alarmed. After returning from an anniversary dinner the evening of March 20, 2000, Ms. Orndorff placed two phone calls, one to an attorney who was a family friend and the other to the 911 operator, reporting that she had shot her husband in self-defense after he came at her with a knife and a baseball bat. During the 911 call, she was alternately lucid and calm, disoriented and agitated. Later that night, police found Mr. Orndorff on the kitchen floor shot five times; he held a knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other. Ms. Orndorff was arrested and charged with murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a murder. At the request of the defense counsel, Ms. Orndorff was examined before trial by two mental health professionals, who found that she had a propensity to dissociate her emotions and actions from her conscious awareness, but did not suffer any mental disorder that would support an insanity defense. Although Ms. Orndorff introduced testimony to establish that she had amnesia after the shooting, she did not pursue an insanity defense. The jury found her guilty of both charges. Ms. Orndorff’s mental state deteriorated in jail while awaiting sentencing. The trial judge doubted that she could properly participate in the sentencing phase of the trial and ordered a competency evaluation. Ms. Orndorff was found not competent and was committed to Central State Hospital, where she was hospitalized for eight months. During the hospitalization, an increasing number of alter personalities manifested themselves to various professionals. The dissociative identity disorder (DID) experts consulted by the hospital diagnosed Ms. Orndorff with DID, but other mental health professionals, including those observing her during her lengthy hospitalization, disagreed. Eventually, Ms. Orndorff was found competent, and the case proceeded to the sentencing phase. Before sentencing, the defense moved for a new trial based on the “newly discovered” evidence of DID, asserting that this evidence could be used at a new trial to establish insanity at the time of the crime. The trial judge deferred ruling on the motion until the completion of the sentencing hearing. The court permitted Ms. Orndorff to present her DID diagnosis to the jury during the sentencing phase as mitigating evidence. During the sentencing hearing, the court heard testimony from the DID experts. In addition, however, the jury heard that Ms. Orndorff attempted to bribe a witness to claim falsely that she was physically abused by her husband and that she told her prison cellmate that she was manipulating doctors in claiming multiple personalities. Forensic experts testified that the crime scene was manipulated, contradicting Ms. Orndorff’s account of acting in self-defense, and the court observed Ms. Orndorff’s behavior alternating between normal and bizarre, based on whether the trial appeared to be proceeding in her favor. The jury sentenced Ms. Orndorff to 32 years’ imprisonment for murder and an additional 3 years for the firearms offense. After sentencing, the defense renewed the motion for a new trial. The trial judge rejected it, holding that Ms. Orndorff’s evidence of DID would not produce opposite results at another trial, as the jury had heard that evidence and nevertheless sentenced her to a lengthy imprisonment. A series of appeals followed. Legal Digest