Opinion ID: 4534441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Garcia moves to change venue.

Text: ¶14. At the same July 26, 2016 hearing, the trial court took up Garcia’s motion to change venue, which he had filed July 14, 2016. In his motion, Garcia argued there was a reasonable 6 In his recorded interview at the police station, Garcia told the detectives they would find items that Garcia took from the trailer in his apartment. Garcia was separately charged with burglary. 6 likelihood that an impartial jury could not be impaneled in the First Judicial District of Harrison County. He asserted the disappearance and death of JT was “sensational, front-page news throughout the Gulf Coast region.” To support his motion, he attached copies of various media reports, along with affidavits by three community members. See Miss. Code § 99-15-35 (Rev. 2015) (requiring a motion to change venue be “supported by the affidavits of two or more credible persons”). ¶15. At the hearing, Garcia, the State, and the trial court agreed to the following procedure: Garcia would present his evidence supporting the motion, and the State would present its evidence opposing the motion. Then, the question of pretrial publicity would be put to fourteen people who had been summoned but not selected for jury duty for an unrelated trial being held that day. But after Garcia and the State presented their arguments and evidence, the court learned the case scheduled for trial had ended in a guilty plea, so there were no jurors to question. After further discussions, Garcia, the State, and the court agreed to defer the rest of the hearing until another mock jury was available. ¶16. Three weeks later, on August 16, 2016, the change-of-venue hearing resumed. As agreed, the court brought in thirty prospective jurors who were not seated in an unrelated trial taking place that day. They were questioned by the trial judge about their knowledge of the pretrial publicity surrounding JT’s murder and Garcia’s arrest. After general questions were asked, fourteen jurors were seated and asked additional detailed questions by Garcia’s 7 counsel and the State.7 From their responses, the trial court concluded that “a fair and impartial jury can be seated, given proper and thorough voir dire.” ¶17. The trial court also weighed other factors—the fact the case was capital, the lack of evidence of threats of violence against Garcia, and the media coverage, which the court determined was not “an inordinate amount.” See White v. State, 495 So. 2d 1346, 1349 (Miss. 1986) (enumerating factors that when present indicate the presumption that a fair trial cannot be had in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred is irrebuttable). The court denied Garcia’s motion to change venue. V. The trial court considers Garcia’s competency. ¶18. On November 22, 2016, the trial court heard testimony from forensic psychologist Dr. Robert Storer on a “possible competency issue.” ¶19. After evaluating Garcia, Dr. Storer testified that, in his expert opinion, Garcia was not competent to stand trial. While Garcia had no intellectual deficits, there was a “constant theme of anxiety” in his life. Dr. Storer noted that Garcia had suffered at least one panic attack while at court. And if Garcia became anxious, Dr. Storer opined, he would be unable to participate in trial and interact with his attorneys. Dr. Storer also expressed doubt about Garcia’s ability to make rational decisions concerning his legal situation. When asked, Garcia said he would prefer death over a life sentence due to the solitary confinement of death row. Dr. Storer recommended Garcia get long-term treatment for his anxiety, which 7 Once seated in the jury box, these fourteen people were told they would not serve as the actual jury in Garcia’s case. Instead, they would be asked questions about pretrial publicity so the court could determine if the accused would receive a fair trial. 8 could be administered in jail. Dr. Storer opined that thirty days of treatment would be enough for Garcia to experience a “different outcome.” Dr. Storer said he would wait until after this treatment period was over before completing his full forensic report. ¶20. The trial judge then questioned Dr. Storer more carefully. She first asked if Dr. Storer was aware that the day of Garcia’s alleged panic attack, Garcia had not been administered his regular medication. She also asked if Dr. Storer was aware that Garcia had no problem during the court proceedings. Rather, as court recessed for lunch, Garcia told his attorneys that he felt uncomfortable. The trial judge then asked Dr. Storer about his earlier comment that Garcia had responded appropriately to the questions asked by the court and that Garcia fully understood what was going on. Dr. Storer reiterated that Garcia’s intellectual functioning was fine. He also explained that his anxiety disorder “is not a severe and persistent mental illness of the type that would alter someone’s perception of reality.” But Dr. Storer cautioned that Garcia’s anxiety “shuts him down to where he’s not paying attention and listening and processing information, and he’s not able to ask questions of his attorneys as appropriate or point things out.” ¶21. Finally, the trial judge asked what was illogical or irrational about Garcia’s preferring his own jail cell. Before Dr. Storer answered, the judge interjected, [L]et me tell you that for many years I have expressed the opinion that if I were in this position, I would rather have the death penalty than a life without [parole] for several reasons. One of which is that I would have my own cell where no one else would be and my own things that no one else would bother. I don’t find that at all irrational. I find it very much like those who perhaps have a life-threatening disease make a choice either for treatment or no treatment. So tell me why it’s irrational in this case. 9 Dr. Storer responded that his concern was that Garcia’s decision-making ability may be impacted by his anxiety disorder. But he could not say to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that this was so. ¶22. After speaking with Garcia, who said he was “feeling fine” that day, the trial judge made her ruling: [B]ased on the testimony, and of course my observances of Mr. Garcia, it does not appear to me that he is in any manner incompetent in terms of intellectual functioning or his ability to understand and appreciate what is going on or in fact in his ability to consult with his attorneys. I do have some question, based on Dr. Storer’s testimony, with regard to if we were to go to trial, how he would handle that in the courtroom because I do recall that at some point it was reported to me that he was beginning to experience some anxiety on one of our hearings previously. It was also reported to me he had not received his medication that morning, and the nurse I believe actually traveled here to the courthouse to provide him with that. And he did much better and was much more relaxed, insofar as my observations, for the portion after the lunch break. It appears to me that clearly he could participate during trial. And I think that based on that, we probably need to follow Dr. Storer’s recommendation in that regard and have Mr. Garcia seen by whomever at the jail can make the determination as to the appropriate medication and determine if, in fact, they believe a long-acting medication would be better than what he is taking or a different dose of what he’s taking would be better and to allow him that 30 days to get that, as I understand it, therapeutic level is what Dr. Storer is talking about, and then have Dr. Storer again speak with him in that regard. So at this point I find him competent but for that potential issue, and I’ll reserve that issue to see if in fact the medication which Mr. Garcia states he’s more than willing to take because it seems to make him feel better and function better, and we’ll see what sort of result that has because I think at this point he probably could make it through a trial, and he probably would do all right going through a trial. 10 But I think it would take a great deal of patience on his part and his attorney’s part. It might take more frequent breaks, et cetera. And once we’re into the trial, it would be very difficult at that point. If in fact he did have one of these as attacks and was unable to participate, we would be unable to move forward. so I think the better course is to try to treat this first and see where we stand in about 30 days. ¶23. The trial judge concluded the hearing by addressing Garcia directly about his stated preference for the death penalty: Judge: Now, Dr. Storer says you have a preference in this case that you’ve expressed to him about sentencing. I’ve told him an opinion I’ve held for some time about sentencing. I don’t want you to be swayed by my opinion one way or the other. Garcia: No, ma’am. I won’t. Judge: Because I’m not in your situation. Garcia: I understand, ma’am. Judge: It’s an academic exercise for me in terms of my years of practice, et cetera. So I don’t want you to be swayed by that. I asked him that because I wanted to know really truly what he was thinking on that. Garcia: Yes, ma’am. I understood about that.