Opinion ID: 2585200
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Events leading to institution of competency proceedings

Text: Defendant's case was set for trial before Judge Charles V. Stone on July 17, 1989. That morning, defendant's retained counsel, Ernest Kinney, reported that a disagreement had arisen concerning defendant's desire to waive a jury trial. Judge Stone advised defendant that he did not have a constitutional right to a nonjury trial, that counsel had the right to control the tactics and strategy in the case, and that counsel did not want to waive a jury trial. Defendant informed Judge Stone that he disagreed with counsel over the type of jury to select: defendant did not want transvestites on the jury. Defendant told Judge Stone that all females in pants and men in dresses were transvestites. Mr. Kinney said that, although he had agreed to take the case on a no-time-waiver basis, the issue of waiving a jury had come up only recently. Based on the facts of defendant's case, Kinney concluded he would not waive a jury. Defendant retorted that Kinney was lying and that he had told Kinney at their first meeting that he wanted a court trial. Defendant noted he had been slandering women who wear pants for many years and hoped they knew it, and thus felt a female jury would be prejudicial to his case. Defendant subsequently clarified that women are terrific jurors and he had a problem only with transvestites. Judge Stone again advised defendant he could not waive a jury over counsel's objection. Defendant then said: So that leaves me in a case, I can fire my attorney and not have adequate representation or take a chance that I may not be getting adequate representation at this moment because I've told him that I don't feel that he will get me a fair trialI fear that he won't get me a fair trial by [a] jury of my peers. Judge Stone asked defendant what he wished to do. Defendant reiterated he wanted to waive the jury. Judge Stone asked, Is there something else you want to say as far as being represented by Mr. Kinney is concerned? Defendant responded: I want a quick and speedy trial. I just got through telling you. I certainly cannot be prepared to handle this myself at the moment or I would certainly be willing to get rid of him. But I have zero preparation. I guess I have to go potluck then, but I object to my counsel, yes, sir. Judge Stone then ordered that a panel of 75 jurors be brought to the courtroom for jury selection. That afternoon, outside the presence of the prospective jurors but with the prosecutor present, Kinney advised the court of another strategic dispute with defendant. Defendant wanted Kinney to subpoena all the records of California Department of Justice Criminalist William Jerry Chisum to determine whether Chisum had ever seen a bullet jacket separating from a bullet and remaining outside the wound. Defendant expressed disbelief that Chisum had ever seen a bullet separate from its casing and sought to impeach his testimony in that regard. When Kinney, who believed the effort would be a waste of time, refused to comply with defendant's request, defendant became upset, called him a liar, and stated he had no recourse but to represent himself. Without resolving the latter question, the court continued to conduct voir dire for the rest of the day. The following morning, Kinney informed the court that defendant wished to represent himself, adding: Because of the past mental situation of my client, being in Atascadero, because of his desire to have a court trial versus a jury trial, there has been a split in our theory and in our thinking and he does desire to go forward and represent himself. I would indicate to the court that based on his past record and some indications I have from Dr. Berg, there is a question in my mind whether he is competent to proceed to trial, and in particular, whether he is competent to stand as his own attorney. [¶] I would urge the court under [section] 1368 to appoint a doctor to have that evaluated. If he is found competent, then, of course, the court following the appropriate law, I believe, he could be his own counsel. I would request a [section] 1368 [examination] based on what I've told the court at this time. After another outburst by defendant, Judge Stone declared he entertained a doubt as to defendant's competency to proceed to trial, suspended criminal proceedings, and appointed Clinical Psychologist Philip Trompetter to examine defendant.