Opinion ID: 889300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: New Defense Theory and New Counsel (Jan. 27 to June 16, 2005; 140 days)

Text: ¶ 14 Although the plea proposal process had been exhausted, Nistler indicated that he could not move forward with the omnibus hearing because Couture had just recently for the first time asked him to pursue a mental state or mitigation defense. To that end, Nistler requested funding for an independent assessment by a private psychiatrist to ascertain whether such a defense was plausible. The court raised the issue of speedy trial, and so Nistler had Couture acknowledge on the record that the time spent investigating his mental state defense (which Nistler had estimated would take six to eight weeks) could not be held against the State for speedy trial purposes. The prosecutor indicated that he did not object, noting that this being a homicide case, I am not going to stand in the way of the defendant exploring all possibilities. The court echoed this view and agreed to continue the hearing. A status conference was set for March 17. ¶ 15 At the status conference, Nistler stated that he had made four separate requests for a mental evaluation of Couture through Dr. William Stratford's office, but apparently I picked the busiest psychiatrist in western Montana and accordingly I haven't been able to get his confirmation until yesterday. Nistler confirmed that Couture has rejected any plea proposals, and it appears that the probability is great that it's headed to trial. But he contended that the separate mental health evaluation needed to be completed before they could proceed with the omnibus hearing. He explained that the evaluation was necessary in order to review any potential defenses in the case and also to determine Couture's fitness to proceed. Regarding the latter point, Nistler asserted that Couture had deteriorated since the previous evaluation by the State Hospital. He thus requested a continuance of one month, to which the prosecutor did not object. The court reset the matter for April 14. ¶ 16 On April 14, Nistler again noted that Couture did not wish to accept the plea proposals from the State and wanted this matter to proceed to trial, where the primary defense would be a mental defense. However, Dr. Stratford had not yet issued his final report on Couture. Therefore, Nistler suggested a two-week continuance, to which the prosecutor did not object, and the court accordingly set the omnibus hearing for April 28. But on April 28, and again on May 5, Nistler obtained further continuances because Dr. Stratford still had not issued his report. In both instances, the court pointed out that a trial date of June 13 was available, and the court proposed to set trial for that date, which meant that the omnibus hearing needed to be held in May. See § 46-13-110(1), MCA. But Nistler maintained that he could not proceed to omnibus until he had received and reviewed Dr. Stratford's report. The court continued the matter to May 19. ¶ 17 In the interim, the court received a letter from Couture on May 10 requesting a hearing to seek new counsel. The court considered this request at the May 19 hearing, at which time Nistler and Couture explained the basis of Couture's complaint. In summary, Couture felt that Nistler had not been diligent in preparing a defense, and he believed that Nistler could not provide effective representation due to his heavy caseload. Couture also was dissatisfied with the findings and assistance they had received from the investigator and the psychiatrist. Moreover, Couture and Nistler disagreed on strategy and whether the case should go to trial. Nistler stated that they were at a fundamental impasse in that Couture did not want to seek a plea agreement and instead wished to proceed to trial, whereas Nistler, the investigator, and the psychiatrist feel that there is nothing we can do that's significant to assist him at the trial of the case. Lastly, Couture was frustrated that he did not have copies of all discovery, which he wanted to study in order to assist in his defense. Given these circumstances, Nistler concluded that they had reached a point where Couture did not trust him, and Couture insisted that he wanted counsel with not such a heavy case load to help me. The court cautioned Couture that appointing new counsel and giving that person time to get up to speed would result in delay, which would be attributable to him. Couture acknowledged this and subsequently filed a speedy trial waiver, which again did not specify the period covered except to say that it was for additional time, to allow the Court to appoint him new counsel. ¶ 18 The District Court appointed Rebecca Dupuis on June 13. At a status conference held June 16, Dupuis stated that she and Couture had met briefly and agreed to request an omnibus hearing in August. In addition, she noted that Couture had told her to take as much time as I need in preparing his defense and that he understood such delay would be attributable to him for speedy trial purposes. The prosecutor did not object to setting the omnibus hearing for August 11 but noted that the family of the victim had been extremely distraught over the delays in this case and that, for this reason, he likely would be objecting to any further delays. At this point (June 16, 2005), 395 days had passed since Couture's arrest, and 280 days had passed since he entered his not guilty pleas. No trial date had been set, and the parties had not yet gone through the omnibus hearing, which is supposed to occur [w]ithin a reasonable time following the entry of a not guilty plea but not less than 30 days before trial. Section 46-13-110(1), MCA.