Font Size: 
Antidepressant Withdrawal Is Blamed for Assault
New York Law Journal
September 11, 2009
When his girlfriend said no to sex, Brandon Hampson flew into a rage and beat her, a Nassau County, N.Y., prosecutor on Thursday told a jury in a small Hempstead courtroom.
But the attack was caused by Hampson's withdrawal from the prescription antidepressant Zoloft, his attorney told jurors.
Hampson is on trial for assaulting his girlfriend and then preventing her from leaving, prosecutors charge. But the case has drawn nationwide attention because of the unusual defense put forth by Hampson -- that Zoloft side effects caused the attack.
"The fact is, Brandon was not taking this drug partially because [his girlfriend] wanted him to [stop]," Eric Bernstein, Hampson's attorney, told the jury of three men and two women.
In her opening statement, Assistant District Attorney Christina Colon described in graphic detail the alleged beating, which took place early one August morning in 2006.
Hampson was "punching her repeatedly and stomping on her head," Colon said, over the objection of Bernstein.
After the attack, Colon said, Hampson's sole concern was for himself, allegedly telling his girlfriend, "It's over, it's all over -- I'm going to jail."
Instead of taking his girlfriend to the hospital, the Lynbrook, N.Y., man tried to convince the woman to speak to his relatives and "make a plan" to avoid charges, Colon said, leaving the woman to call a friend from a bar to come pick her up and take her home.
In a brief opening statement, Bernstein, of Manhattan, told the jury the issue was simply whether Hampson intended to beat his girlfriend.
"We are not denying that a physical altercation took place," Bernstein said, but added that Hampson lacked the intent to attack his girlfriend. "Expert testimony is going to show you that Zoloft is not a safe drug ... because Zoloft can cause violence and aggression toward others."
That claim will be made by defense expert witness Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a Harrisburg, Pa., graduate of Harvard Medical School, who testified at a pretrial hearing in January that some people who take antidepressants like Zoloft may suffer "significant side effects," including agitation, excessive aggression and grandiosity.
Last month, district court Judge Rhonda E. Fischer ruled that Kruszewski could testify as an expert, but the prosecution could bring in its own expert witness to rebut the theory.
The jury should hear the "distinguished experts who possess differing opinions on the effect [the drug] may have on the population," Fischer said in her August ruling.
EXPERT'S FEE
Dr. Douglas Jacobs, a psychiatrist who is an associate clinical professor at Harvard, will testify for the prosecution that Kruszewski's opinion is not generally accepted by experts in the field and was based on flawed research methods. According to Newsday, he will be paid $7,500 a day by Pfizer, the drug's manufacturer.
At the pretrial hearing, Jacobs testified that the drug actually "reduced aggression, reduced anger and reduced hostility," and that Kruszewski had not relied on any clinical trials to support his conclusion.
Defense attorney Brian J. Griffin, who is not involved in the case, said the payment arrangement was "highly unusual."
"Generally speaking, the government funds their own cases -- they represent the people of the state of New York and not necessarily any one segment of the state of New York," Griffin, of Foley, Griffin, Jacobson & Faria in Garden City, N.Y., said in an interview.
"I think one could argue that by allowing Pfizer to pay, Pfizer might have more of a voice in the manner in which the testimony comes forward ... that I think certainly raises a level of concern," Griffin said.
Eric Phillips, a spokesman for Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, said that while not widely used, the move is not unprecedented and was disclosed to the defense and the judge.
In a statement, Phillips said that without an expert, the prosecution's case would be "substantially weakened" and rather than use "significant taxpayer resources to defend the drug, we chose to let Pfizer defend its drug."
If Pfizer foots the bill, he added, "we can continue to fight on behalf of the victim and we don't put the public in the position of defending this drug company with their finite taxpayer resources."
Monroe Freedman, an ethics professor at Hofstra University School of Law, said that private payment of a prosecution witness is not unethical.
"The witness is getting $7,500 a day but whether the government pays it or the state pays it is irrelevant unless there is some legitimate claim. And I doubt that $7,500 a day is going to do it. ... I don't think that the sum qualifies as excessive," Freedman said. "I just don't see how that makes a difference, as long as it can be brought to the attention of the jury. If the argument is that somehow it looks worse that the government is paying him, so much better for the defense."
Christopher Loder, a spokesman for Pfizer, said in a statement that "no controlled scientific studies have ever concluded that Zoloft use or discontinuation causes violence toward others."
In court Thursday, outside the presence of the jury, Judge Fischer ruled that upon taking the stand, Kruszewski would not automatically "open the door" to questions about Hampson's criminal past, which includes a prior assault conviction.
Declining to "speculate" if testimony about the conviction would be allowed, Fischer said she would be open to re-argument, before reiterating that in her view, both experts "can render a fair opinion" on whether Zoloft caused the attack in this case.
The trial is expected to continue next week.
