In the trial of Robert Blake, Gary McLarty was an appropriate and reliable witness. He was not insane, but he made a testimony. His mental problems were present, but not that bad. On a scale of 1 to 10, his mental problems were about a 4. This just makes the quota.
Mental illness is used so often to discredit perfectly rational, perfectly good people. I don't think most people understand what mental illness is, or that there are varying degrees of it. Insomnia is a mental illness, so is OCD, so is depression--it doesn't automatically mean you can discredit someone because of what they suffer.
Yes, Gary Mclarty was a reliable witness given his metal problems. Mental problems have certain levels of functionality for the person. Gary Mclarty exhibited enough competence to show that he could be as much of a reliable witness as a person without a mental handicap. I think to look over him would be a mistake and cause for a appeal and retrial in the future.
Gary McLarty was a reliable witness for the prosecution in the Robert Blake trial even though he had mental issues. His testimony seemed very convincing and not contrived for the prosecution. His mental problems existed, but they did not affect his ability to tell what he saw happen and for him to be convincing.
Given the circumstances of the case against Robert Blake, Gary McLarty didn't have much to do with the incident other than claiming a similar story to that of Ronald "Duffy" Hambleton, after he came forward. In the end the prosecution simply didn't have the evidence to convict and that is what really matters when it comes to justice.