“Yeah,” Ben said. “Especially when we’re not running an insanity defense.”

“I don’t know that,” Drabble said calmly. “But even if they don’t use the word insanity, they will no doubt argue that this nice boy from a pleasant middle-class family couldn’t possibly commit this awful crime. We’re entitled to rebut that.”

“That is not what he’s doing,” Ben insisted. “He’s suggesting that because a man is a member of a certain organization-”

“Two, actually.”

Ben grimaced. “That his association with these groups incriminates him. It’s a First Amendment issue.”

Drabble waved his hands in the air. “All the witness will say is that the fact that the defendant was in antigay groups demonstrates that he was predisposed to harbor hatred toward gay people. Duh.”

“You know it won’t stop there,” Ben said. “The witness’ll be suggesting that because he went to some meetings where the use of violence was espoused, that meant he acted in conformity on the night in question. A clear evidentiary violation.”

“I will not argue that,” Drabble said, getting a little hot. “I don’t have to. Your client has confessed, remember?”

“Not to the murder.”

“Close enough.”

“This is like the O. J. Simpson prosecutors suggesting that because O. J. dreamed about hurting his wife that meant he did.”

“As I recall,” Drabble said, “the prosecutors lost that case big time. Maybe you shouldn’t protest so much.”

“You’ll go beyond that,” Ben said. “You’ll turn it into a-”

Lacayo held up his hands. “Quiet! I’ve heard enough. I’m going to allow the testimony.”

“Your honor!” Ben started.

“I said, quiet! I’m ruling. I’ll allow the testimony, but only for the purpose of showing that the defendant was psychologically capable of the crime. I want no assumptions that he did anything more than what he has confessed to doing.”

“Understood,” Drabble said.

“And I don’t want a lot of psycho mumbo jumbo that will only confuse the jury, either.” He peered across the desk at Drabble, and Ben felt certain a pointed message was being communicated. “I don’t think this is a complicated case. Let’s not turn it into one.”

“Dr. Pitney,” Drabble said, after exhaustively establishing the man’s professional credentials and that he had spent ten hours examining Johnny Christensen, “would you call the Christian Minutemen a hate group?”

“Absolutely.” The man had a bushy red beard which he seemed to have a hard time keeping his hands off of. “They deny it, of course. They justify all their beliefs in terms of carefully chosen scriptures. But by my standard, and that of most of my colleagues, an organization that opposes people based on who they are, based on being members of a discrete group, is a hate group.”

“Is there any documentation backing up your view on this point?”

“Of course. You’ve already admitted the group’s printed principles and tenets into evidence. I would invite the jury to read it when they have a chance. Pay particular attention to the passages about ‘the plague of homosexuality,’ the equation of ‘consensual sodomy’ with child abuse, the suggestions that homosexuality is a mental disease adopted by choice by the ungodly. Homophobia is all over the document-and this is something that is handed out to all prospective and new members of the organization.”

“Is this… unusual?”

Pitney shifted around in his seat. He was doing a good job, Ben noted, of making eye contact with the jury, but not in such a direct and obvious manner that it made them uncomfortable or feel they were watching a performance. “Depends on what you mean. When this organization was first created, about sixty years ago, its principles also included equally vehement passages about people of other races. That has fallen away, of course. In our modern world, that wouldn’t be tenable; they’d be perceived as a KKK-another supposedly Christian group. And the principles still have many incredibly sexist antifemale passages. As with many fundamentalist groups, they are very fond of the New Testament scriptures about a wife cleaving to her husband and being subservient to him. That, too, is falling out of favor, even with extremists. Homosexuality is another matter, however. Although times are changing, prejudice against homosexuals is still acceptable in many quarters, particularly with some religious groups. From the standpoint of an organization, it’s still a viable basis for hate.”

“And the Christian Minutemen have been involved in hate crimes against gays?”

“Its members have. More than thirty in the past five years. Of course, the organization always disavows any responsibility for the crimes, just as it has in the present case. But it still happens. Repeatedly. You draw you own conclusions.”

“Where do these people come from? How do they become the way they are?”

“It’s hard to explain. Because it’s always a combination of factors. Almost never a single linear event. I’ve yet to meet a member of one of these groups who was actually harmed in some way by a homosexual. But there is a great appeal in some psyches to having someone to hate. Some cause to rally around, some mission. And in some cases, an excuse for violence.”

“In your experience, Dr. Pitney, is this an example of failed parenting?” A pointed question, Ben knew, because Johnny’s mother was listed as a witness for the defense.

“Sometimes. But you know, I’ve examined large families where one of the parents-usually the father-promoted prejudices to his children. Some of the offspring adopted it lock, stock, and barrel, and even as adults engaged in the same racist slurs and attitudes. And some of the children reject the hate education while still in their teens. By the same token, I’ve interviewed young people who grew up in good homes with well-educated, non-prejudicial parents who ended up joining radical militia groups. That’s not the most common scenario, but it does happen.”

“What makes the difference?”

“I don’t know.” Ben looked up; that was something he didn’t hear often from an expert witness. “It’s a combination of nature and nurture. Sometimes it’s a part of teen rebellion, either to adopt or to refuse to adopt these prejudices. Sometimes it’s personality-some people, happily, are just not predisposed to hate, no matter what the situation. Some young people are exposed to a forceful personality at a critical juncture who transforms their way of thinking. Education is obviously a factor, as is wealth. But you know what I really think makes the difference? And I’ll admit up front I have no way of proving this. But I think in the long run it has to do with the subject’s… how to say it?… exposure to ideas. Never once have I encountered a well-read man who was also a hatemonger. There are no Ph.D.s in the KKK. I truly believe that people who expose themselves to the arts-fine arts, visual arts, poetry, literature-people who expose themselves to good ideas will not end up adopting bad ones. It’s the guys who don’t come into contact with new and better thoughts-who do their work and pay the bills but aren’t exposed to new ideas in any way that influences them-who are most likely to hang on to the old bad ideas they learned as a child.” He paused. “Or in a keenly bigoted fraternity house.”

Drabble nodded, turning a page in his notebook. “Now, Dr. Pitney, you’ve had a chance to examine the defendant, Jonathan Christensen, haven’t you?”

“Yes.” Pitney detailed the hours he spent, the tests he performed, records he reviewed, laying the foundation for the testimony to come.

“Did you reach any conclusions regarding the man’s sanity?”

Pitney nodded. “John Christensen is all too sane. Plagued by hate. More than ready to act upon it. But unfortunately, that does not make him insane. Not even temporarily.”

“Based upon your time with him, why do you believe he committed this horrible crime?”