Judge in Leifer case rejects defense claim experts succumbed to public pressure

More from Judge Chana Miriam Lomp’s ruling this afternoon on Malka Leifer:

“In light of the panel’s opinion, I was persuaded that the respondent understands the charges for which she would be prosecuted in Australia and also understood the nature of the extradition procedure,” Lomp writes.

Referring to medical opinions submitted on the defense’s behalf by three district psychiatrists, Lomp writes that they were based on erroneous facts, and notes that they did not edit their opinions even after the prosecution’s submission of video evidence that suggested Leifer was feigning mental illness.

As to the separate psychiatric panel appointed by the court, Leifer did not cooperate with it “when asked questions related to the legal process, but on other issues she answered questions in a matter-of-fact manner in three different sessions,” Lomp writes.

Lomp stresses that her ruling is based off “clinical examination” of the defendant rather than evidence collected by police and private investigators, which the defense previously argued were prejudicial.

Dismissing the defense’s argument that the court-appointed psychiatric panel’s members had succumbed to public pressure in making their determination, Lomp writes that the experts “are objective, acted as the long arm of the court upon their appointment, did their job faithfully, and ruled in a unanimous measure.”

— with Jacob Magid