Willis C. Driscoll

Willis C. Driscoll was a clinical psychologist whose January 1978 evaluation became an early piece of medical evidence in the legal dispute over whether William Stanley Milligan could assist in his defense. Driscoll diagnosed acute schizophrenia and described severe disruption in Milligan’s sense of identity and ability to distinguish himself from his surroundings; his recommendation was further examination and hospitalization, not a final legal determination of responsibility or a settled account of Milligan’s condition.

Identity and Evaluation

After William Stanley Milligan’s public defenders secured funds for a psychological evaluation, Driscoll administered a battery of tests on January 8 and 13, 1978. The evaluation was directed at Milligan’s condition while he faced prosecution, including whether he could participate meaningfully in his own defense.

The intelligence testing yielded an IQ score of 68. Driscoll cautioned that depression had lowered the score, so it was not presented as an uncomplicated measure of Milligan’s ability. His report diagnosed acute schizophrenia and emphasized a major loss of identity, poorly defined ego boundaries, and a restricted ability to distinguish himself from his environment.

Findings and Recommendation

Driscoll’s account recorded that Milligan heard voices that commanded or berated him, and that he understood them as coming from people who had come from hell to torment him. The report also described Milligan speaking of benevolent people entering his body to oppose those he regarded as harmful. These observations were presented as part of Driscoll’s clinical assessment, not as independently established facts about the voices or their origins.

Driscoll concluded that Milligan could not adequately counsel his own defense or maintain sufficient contact with reality to understand events then taking place. He urged hospitalization for further examination and possible treatment. The report thus linked its clinical observations to a practical conclusion about Milligan’s present capacity, while leaving further examination open.

Role in the Legal Proceedings

On January 19, 1978, Judy Stevenson and Gary Schweickart presented Driscoll’s report to Judge Jay C. Flowers as evidence that William Stanley Milligan could not assist in his defense. The judge said he would order an examination by the forensic psychiatry unit of Southwest Community Mental Health Center. Because the public defenders feared that statements made during that examination could be used against their client, they sought a guarantee that the information would remain privileged.

The prosecution disagreed, and the dispute brought the lawyers close to contempt proceedings. A compromise limited questioning about potentially incriminating statements to a circumstance in which Milligan took the stand in his own defense. The defense then allowed the court-appointed unit to interview him. Driscoll’s evaluation was therefore part of an early legal effort to establish present incapacity, while the subsequent court-ordered examination proceeded under negotiated limits on how its information could be used.

Scope and Significance

Driscoll’s diagnosis should be distinguished from later legal findings and diagnostic descriptions. His report identified acute schizophrenia and supported the defense’s argument about Milligan’s ability to participate at that stage; it did not itself decide criminal responsibility for the charged acts. At the later trial, Judge Flowers dismissed the first rape count for lack of corroborating evidence and found William Stanley Milligan not guilty by reason of insanity on counts two through ten, relying on stipulated medical evidence about his mental illness at the time of the offenses and his inability to distinguish right from wrong or refrain from the acts. The evidence does not establish that Driscoll testified at that trial.

The case’s diagnostic language also changed over time: a December 1979 court finding identified Milligan’s condition as multiple personality. That later finding does not erase the historical role of Driscoll’s earlier assessment, nor does the evidence establish that he participated in it. His contribution was a specific early clinical account—one used to raise the question of present competence and the need for further care, rather than to settle every clinical or legal question that followed.