TYLER, Texas — A court-appointed psychiatrist told jurors Friday that a devoutly religious East Texas housewife was "crazy" when she stoned two sons to death and left a third with lifelong injuries.

"It's a textbook case a clear example of insanity in the state of Texas," said Dr. William Reid, the fourth and final witness for the defense. "My opinion is that she was suffering from a severe mental disease at that time. She did not know that her action or conduct was wrong."

Reid was the fourth expert to tell the jury of eight men and four women that Deanna Laney suffered from a previously undiagnosed mental illness when she attacked sons Joshua, 8, Luke, 6, and Aaron, 14 months.

Joshua and Luke were dead when Laney called 911 on the day before Mother's Day last year. Aaron survived but is nearly blind and will have to rely on others for most of his needs for the rest of his life.

Because of an initial lack of remorse and a delusion that God had instructed her to kill the boys, Reid said it was clear from his review of the evidence and a long interview with Laney that she could not appreciate right from wrong because of her disease.

Story continues

advertisement

Reid used the words "crazy" and "craziness" more than a half dozen times, which no doubt raised eyebrows among peers watching the proceedings. Three other psychiatrists stopped short of declaring Laney "insane," saying that is a legal distinction that only a jury can make in Texas.

"I'm not trying to be cavalier by using the word 'crazy,' but it's a descriptive word," Reid explained.

During a lengthy cross-examination that closely resembled a debate, Assistant District Attorney J. Brett Harrison tried to get Reid to say that psychiatry is subjective and that his opinion that Laney couldn't distinguish between right and wrong was irrelevant.

"Psychiatry isn't a fuzzy, lay on the couch sort of profession anymore. It hasn't been that way for a number of years," Reid said.

Harrison objected strongly when the defense noted for a second time that Judge Cynthia Kent, and not the defense, hired Reid to reach an opinion about Laney's state of mind at the time of the May 10, 2003, killings.

Although Reid rarely agreed with Harrison, the prosecutor managed to get some of what may be in the prosecution's closing argument before the jury. Through his questions, Harrison highlighted the brutality of the attacks and deliberate things Laney did even while she was killing her children.

For example, she tried to muffle Aaron's cries because she didn't want her sleeping husband, Keith, to hear his screams and interfere with the killings. She told a psychiatrist that she believed Keith would deem the killings "wrong" and try to stop her from carrying out what she believed to be God's will.

The prosecution has also been suggesting through questions that there is something nefarious behind Laney's call to her mother-in-law to arrange a Mother's Day brunch when she had already concluded that she would have to kill her children to appease God.

"I don't want to put reason into an unreasonable person's mind when it's not there," Reid said.

After both sides rested, Laney spoke in open court for the first time since the trial began Monday. She responded "Yes, your honor" or "No, your honor" when Kent asked her if she understood that she could testify, but didn't have to, and whether she was pleased with the assistance of counsel.

On Saturday, the sequestered jury will hear closing arguments of no more than 80 minutes from each side. The panel is expected to begin its deliberations at about 2 p.m. ET Saturday.