Opinion ID: 2585200
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial on competency

Text: On August 8, 1989, the competency hearing was held before Judge Frank S. Pierson. Dr. Trompetter's report and Dr. Berg's letter-report, summarized above, were received into evidence. Counsel waived the experts' presence and the right to cross-examination, and proceeded to argument. Defense counsel argued Dr. Trompetter had not spent sufficient time with defendant to assemble a complete picture of him. Counsel argued further that defendant's concerns regarding transvestites and lesbians prevented him from either assisting counsel or representing himself, urging the court to find him incompetent. The prosecutor argued, to the contrary, that Dr. Trompetter's report demonstrated that defendant possessed a sophisticated understanding of the nature of the proceedings and had some rational basis for preferring a court trial. Defendant's irrational beliefs concerning women and homosexuals, the prosecutor further argued, did not interfere with his understanding of the criminal process. The prosecutor pointed out that defendant was not an ignorant person and had often suggested lines of cross-examination to defense counsel and demonstrated knowledge of such subjects as ballistics. The prosecutor characterized the parties' differences as centering on tactical choices', such as self-representation or representation by counsel and trial by jury or trial by the court, and argued in conclusion that defendant was capable of making rational, albeit maybe somewhat distorted tactical decisions. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Pierson found defendant capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him and ... capable of assisting counsel in his defense.