By Nancy Lowry
The prosecution painted a picture of Jordan Brown as reluctant to take responsibility for his actions.
That behavior of the 12-year-old homicide defendant “complicates his ability to be rehabilitated,” according to Dr. John O’Brien of Philadelphia.
A forensic psychiatrist and a lawyer, O’Brien testified for prosecutor Anthony Krastek as a hearing begun Jan. 29 continued Friday in Lawrence County Common Pleas Court.
Krastek — from the state attorney general’s office — is opposing the request by Jordan’s lawyers to transfer the case to juvenile court.
The decision on where the case is tried turns on the capacity for Jordan to be rehabilitated.
The boy is charged as an adult with two counts of homicide in the death of his father’s pregnant fiancée, Kenzie Marie Houk, 26. She was shot to death Feb. 20, 2009, in the New Beaver Borough home she shared with her two daughters, Jordan and his father.
In January, Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, a forensic psychologist and expert in adolescent development, testified for defense attorneys David Acker and Dennis Elisco. He said Jordan “has a low risk of engaging in future violent crimes and ... is amenable to counseling.”
O’Brien disagreed, saying, “To be rehabilitated for a serious crime, (Jordan) must take responsibility for his behavior.”
Now that the hearing has concluding, President Judge Dominick Motto must rule within 20 days on whether to leave the case in criminal court or transfer it to the juvenile justice system.
If convicted of first-degree murder as an adult, Jordan would serve a mandatory life sentence without parole. If found delinquent in juvenile court, he could be released by his 21st birthday.
Jordan, in a brown shirt and tan pants, sat at the defense table, his hands and legs shackled. The courtroom was filled to capacity and included six sheriff’s deputies and six state troopers, two in uniform and four on hand to testify.
O’Brien examined the boy Feb. 24 at the Edmund L. Thomas Adolescent Center in Erie, where Jordan has lived for more than a year. He also reviewed information such as school records and Heilbrun’s tests, evaluation and testimony.
Jordan suffers from no brain damage or diagnosed mental illness that needs treatment, O’Brien said.
However, he noted, he found Jordan to be evasive and easily angered, adding he did not take responsibility for what had happened. He said Jordan told him he was in trouble because statements by his sister, Jenessa, were not accurate.
“He said he didn’t know what happened,” O’Brien testified. “I asked if he was responsible, he said no. I did not expect anything different.”
O’Brien said he nothing in his examination provided evidence that Jordan and Houk had had a confrontation, no signs of abuse and no easily identified motivation.
“This offense was conceived, planned and carried out with forethought on his part to make sure no one could figure it out,” O’Brien testified.
He noted it had occurred prior to the pending birth of Jordan’s half brother, while he was being moved out of his room so it could be the baby’s.
Questioned by Acker, O’Brien said be believes Jordan “carried out (the killing) in a methodical, cold-blooded manner. There is no evidence of an emotional upset.”
O’Brien noted Jordan resented things that he perceived as unfair to him. O’Brien also theorized a motive could be to eliminate others who competed to get his father’s total attention.
If Jordan is found guilty, he continued, he could lose the family support that is a healthy rehabilitating factor.
Therefore, he said, there is a “limited amenability” that Jordan could be rehabilitated.
“With support he has, he is less likely to come forward and say, ‘I did this and I’m sorry.’”
The only other witness testifying was Trooper Jeffrey R. Martin, the chief investigating officer. He testified about shotgun shells found along the home’s driveway.
