Opinion ID: 3176811
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defense evidence at the competency trial

Text: The defense sought to carry its burden of proof through testimony of mental health experts who testified regarding defendant‟s mental illness, his religious preoccupation, and his asserted inability to engage rationally with the experts regarding the offenses or the trial. The court-appointed expert, Dr. Zimmerman, testified that as a result of his November 2003 examination of defendant, he believed defendant was incompetent. Dr. Zimmerman believed defendant was then suffering from depression that made him “seriously impaired” and in fact so indifferent to the trial that he could not “rationally work with his attorney” to assist in the preparation and presentation of his defense. According to Dr. Zimmerman, defendant refused to discuss the facts of the case and did not appear to be exaggerating his symptoms. On the other hand, Dr. Zimmerman found that defendant was not delusional and reported that defendant did not break down in tears and was not then taking medication. Dr. Zimmerman testified that defendant said he was able to talk to his attorney about the case and he understood that he was charged with murder and was facing the death penalty. Dr. Pablo Stewart, the psychiatrist retained by the defense, had served as a consultant under appointment in federal courts and was also employed by the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic in San Francisco.2 He testified that when, in November 2003, he interviewed defendant and administered the MacArthur Competency Test, it was evident to him that defendant was then incompetent. At that time he displayed “amazing” mood fluctuations and, moreover, when Dr. 2 Dr. Stewart spoke Spanish and offered to perform interviews with defendant in that language, but defendant preferred English. 17 Stewart tried to direct defendant‟s attention to questions concerning defense counsel and the function of the court, defendant supplied no focused answers. Rather, defendant at first appeared to speak to the questions, but quickly rambled away from the point to discuss generalities and religious concerns. At that time he scored very poorly in each element of the MacArthur Competency Test. Dr. Stewart testified that not just in November 2003 but also in subsequent interviews in February, April, July, and November 2004, defendant started to reply to questions but quickly moved on to statements expressing delusions focusing on religion and exhibiting paranoia, including fears directed toward defense counsel. Dr. Stewart believed that defendant suffered from a long-standing severe mood disorder, namely depression, which included psychotic features. In Dr. Stewart‟s later interviews with defendant, the mood disorder endured and the psychotic symptoms became, “if anything,” worse. Whereas in November 2003 Dr. Stewart believed defendant was aware of the seriousness of the charges, in November 2004 this was no longer the case and, in Dr. Stewart‟s view, defendant did not appear to understand what the charges were. Defendant responded to questions about the charges by discussing unconnected topics. In the November 2004 interview, Dr. Stewart observed defense counsel Spierling attempt to ask defendant a few routine questions, but noticed that defendant did not “interact” with counsel. Dr. Stewart concluded that because of the depression with psychotic features, defendant was unable to evaluate witness testimony or help select a jury, that he had no insight regarding what led to the crimes, nor could he help counsel develop the case in mitigation. Dr. Robin Schaeffer, the clinical psychologist retained by the defense, conducted a taped competency evaluation interview with defendant just a few days before the competency trial. Dr. Schaeffer concluded defendant was not competent to stand trial. The witness testified that in his opinion, defendant 18 suffered from a psychotic thought disorder, that when he needed to answer questions concretely or specifically, he answered them very generally and rambled, and that his mental illness rendered him unable to think in a logical way. The witness also concluded that because of the psychosis, defendant had “delusional grandiosity,” a paranoid level of distrust, and a sense that the trial was unreal and did not matter.” According to Dr. Schaeffer, defendant‟s preoccupation with general religious thoughts made him unable to respond to questions with any specific answers, and caused defendant to believe that the actual trial was not his true trial. For these reasons, the witness believed, defendant would be unable rationally to assist counsel in his defense, make decisions about testifying or waiving jury trial, understand a plea negotiation, or assist in formulating a defense at the guilt or penalty stages of the trial. Dr. Schaeffer acknowledged that sometimes defendant was able to answer questions, that defendant sometimes “can be of some assistance to counsel,” and that many of defendant‟s responses were not completely irrational. The witness testified that, nonetheless, the overall interview demonstrated defendant‟s inability to stay on track in a manner that would be sufficient even if the charges had been much less serious, because defendant “can‟t with any consistency be rational, because his brain repeatedly throws him into the abstract . . . and causes him to ramble.” A recording of Dr. Schaeffer‟s December 2004 interview with defendant was played for the jury and a transcript was admitted into evidence. The tape recording exhibited defendant‟s rambling, disconnected answers to questions, as well as his distrust and his religious preoccupation. His answers evinced some understanding of the proceedings but an aversion to engaging with them. The defense also presented testimony by Robert Wildman, an experienced criminal defense attorney who was not involved in the case. He described the 19 impediments to a defense counsel‟s performance that would arise when a defendant‟s mental state prevented him or her from assisting counsel in various ways.