'Rockefeller' wants conviction set aside

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff

Lawyers for the man who calls himself Clark Rockefeller have asked a state judge to set aside his convictions in his high-profile custodial kidnapping case, claiming that a prosecutor made inflammatory remarks in a closing argument and that an expert witness for the state gave unreliable testimony about the defendant's sanity.

Clark Rockefeller

A spokeswoman for the Suffolk District Attorney's office said it will respond to the motion in writing but that Superior Court Judge Frank Gaziano considered similar arguments by the defense during the trial and rejected them.

Lawyers for Rockefeller, whose real name is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, said Assistant Suffolk District Attorney David A. Deakin prejudiced their client when he urged the jury to reject defense claims that Rockefeller was insane when he abducted his young daughter last summer.

"Don't let this insanity defense be the culminating manipulation in a lifetime of lies designed to get what he wanted,'' Deakin argued.

Rockefeller's lawyers said Deakin's remark was a "smear" that went beyond the limits of what state appeals courts have permitted in closing arguments.

"The use of the word manipulation suggests that the defendant, his attorneys and, by extension, even his forensic expert witnesses, utilized this defense to con the jury into believing that he suffered from a mental disease or defect,'' wrote Rockefeller's legal team, which was headed by Jeffrey A. Denner, of Boston.

The lawyers also wrote that Gaziano should have granted their request during the trial to order jurors to ignore the testimony of Dr. James A. Chu, a clinical psychiatrist at McLean Hospital who testified for the state. Chu said Rockefeller suffered from a mental disorder but had exaggerated his symptoms and was legally sane at the time of the crime.

Rockefeller's lawyers noted that Chu acknowledged that he was not a forensic psychiatrist and that he was unaware the insanity defense in Massachusetts places the burden on prosecutors to prove the defendant was sane, rather than requiring the defense to prove the defendant was insane.

"Combined, the improper closing argument and the inaccurate expert testimony eviscerated the insanity defense and denied the defendant due process of law,'' said the motion, which was submitted June 19 and unsealed by the judge Thursday, according to Denner.

Erika Gully-Santiago, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley, said prosecutors will respond to the motion within 60 days.

"The issues raised in this motion were raised by defense counsel during the trial, and the judge ruled in the Commonwealth's favor,'' she said in a statement.