David Brom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Brom was convicted on October 3, 1989 of murdering his mother, father, and two siblings. His case revolved around a pair of controversial issues: when should a juvenile be tried as an adult, and what standard should be used to determine legal insanity.

The Rochester, Minnesota, jury convicted David Brom of four counts of first-degree murder on his 18th birthday. A week later, the same jury rejected Brom’s claim that he was insane when he used 56 blows with an axe to murder his father, mother, and two siblings.

He was subsequently sentenced to three consecutive life terms (and one concurrent life term) and will be eligible for parole when he turns 70.

Medical records and testimony at his trial indicated that David was severely depressed at the time of his crime. A Catholic prep school sophomore, David had twice attempted suicide (the last attempt was just a few months prior to the murders), and friends reported that he talked for six months about killing his family.

For reasons never fully explained, that time came on February 18, 1988. In a gruesome crime scene, Cascade Township police who had been summoned to the home found bodies of Bernard Brom, 41, his wife, Paullette, about 40, and children Diane, 14, and Rick, 9, all in their nightclothes. The four were believed to have been slaughtered early that morning. A bloody axe was found in the basement of the home. Authorities theorized that Richard and Rick had been attacked first, and the women coming to investigate were subsequently struck down.

David was arrested the next day while telephoning a friend from a pay phone at a post office. He admitted the crimes and explained that he was “having trouble with his father” over a music tape.

About the same time, the San Francisco-based punk band Negativland took advantage of the intense media scrutiny of the case and claimed its song, "Christianity is Stupid” was at the center of David’s dispute with his father. The band’s specious release turned out to be a "a simplistic narrative that [would] suck the media in," according to the band's frontman. Macabre's "David Brom Took an Axe," from its 1989 album, Gloom, is about the murders.

The first issue David Brom and his attorneys had to face was a motion by the prosecutor to move the case out of the juvenile system into adult court. At the time this case was brought to the court, precedent was much more restrictive about what cases could be removed from juvenile court.

In order to refer a child for adult prosecution, Minnesota law required the trial court to find probable cause “to believe the child committed the offenses alleged in the delinquency petition” and a demonstration by “clear and convincing evidence that the child is not suitable to treatment or that the public safety is not served under the provisions of law relating to juvenile courts.”

Judge Gerard Ring said that David didn’t have any criminal record and that psychiatric testing showed “little, if any, basis” to send him to adult court. However, Ring made his decision reluctantly, noting that he was powerless to decide otherwise and that David’s punishment for four murders would be quite minimal.

“It does not make sense that any person, if convicted of the crimes alleged in this case, should serve a sentence of less than three years,” he said in his opinion. “However, the Legislature has not vested absolute discretion in me as a trial judge to decide this issue based on what my own feeling of justice should be.”

The State appealed Ring’s decision and on October 8, 1988, the Court of Appeals revered Ring’s ruling and ordered David’s case to be tried in adult court.

“The stated purpose of (juvenile) was to secure care and guidance, and to serve the welfare of the minor child,” the appeals court wrote. “(Now,) for youths charged with the commission of a crime, a more punitive approach is emphasized, and as to them the juvenile court operates to promote the public safety and reduce juvenile delinquency by maintaining the integrity of the substantive law prohibiting certain behavior and by developing individual responsibility for lawful behavior.”

A particular section of the law directly addressed David’s situation. According to statute, “a prima facie case that the public safety is not served or that the child is not suitable for treatment shall have been established if the child was at least 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offense and …(I)s alleged by delinquency petition to have committed murder in the first degree…”

The appeals court found that public safety would not be served if David’s case was heard in juvenile court.

“We conclude that the legislature intended to protect the strong and legitimate interest of the public in a fair response by the criminal justice system to a heinous crime,” the judges wrote. “There can be no doubt that the offenses here are heinous and that the only fair response of the criminal justice system, as a matter of law, must be referral.”

When the case went to trial in autumn 1989, as a result of his documented mental illness David presented an insanity defense — an affirmative defense — that added several twists to the normal trial procedure.

For cases involving insanity or diminished capacity defenses (the terms are not interchangeable), Minnesota courts conducted a bifuracted trial that first determined whether or not the defendant was guilty of committing the offense using the basic standard of reasonable doubt. If the jury found that David did commit the murders, then a second phase of the trial began to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, was mentally ill at the time of the offense and therefore not criminally responsible.

Because an insanity defense essentially involves admitting that the defendant committed the offense charged, not surprisingly, in October 1989, the jury found that David had killed his family. The case then moved to the second stage.

When David Brom went on trial, Minnesota law required, for a defendant to succeed in an insanity defense, that he prove “at the time of committing the alleged criminal act [she or he] was laboring under such defect of reason, from [mental illness or deficiency] as not to know the nature of the act, or that it was wrong.” This is referred to as the M'Naghten Rule.

In the second phase of David's trial, the defense suffered its first setback when it came up against a court rule that precluded expert psychiatric testimony in the first phase of the trial when the expert would be asked about premeditation.

Minnesota precedent ruled that psychiatric testimony is irrelevant as to intent because intent must almost always be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a particular crime. Such an inference is the province of the jury.

The fact finder is presented with physical evidence related to a given act and asked to draw on its sensory perceptions, life experiences, and common sense to determine whether that act was indeed intentional.

David presented expert testimony from one psychiatrist who concluded that David did not understand that killing his parents and siblings was wrong when he did so and that, therefore, he was legally insane.

The state offered expert testimony from four psychiatrists. Of these four witnesses, two concluded that David was not legally insane at the time he committed the murders and two did not offer an opinion as to his legal mental illness.

All of the experts in David’s case agreed, however, that he suffered some form of mental illness or impairment.

It took the jury more than 20 hours of deliberation to decide that David’s mental state did not meet the state’s insanity threshold. As a result, he was found criminally responsible for his actions.

Olmsted County District Judge Ancy Morse, who said the case was an “extreme and monumental tragedy” caused by a “pathetically sick, depressed mind.” In her later decision upholding the convictions, Judge Morse called upon the Legislature to revisit its controversial M'Naughten standard.

“Minnesota is ripe and due for change in the mental illness defense, in order to be in touch with current advances and knowledge in psychiatry and psychology,” she wrote.