Opinion ID: 3176811
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution evidence at the competency trial

Text: The prosecution presented expert testimony and other evidence suggesting that defendant had the capacity to engage rationally in the defense, but chose not to do so. Dr. Gary Cavanaugh, a psychiatrist in private practice who also had a substantial forensic practice and taught at the University of California, Davis, was retained by the prosecution. He testified that based on his February 2004 interview with defendant, he found defendant competent to stand trial at that time. Dr. Cavanaugh reviewed the earlier written reports by Drs. Schaeffer, Stewart, and Zimmerman, along with jail mental health records, police reports, the transcript of the interrogation of defendant in jail, and recordings of defendant‟s recent phone conversations. Dr. Cavanaugh believed defendant was capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings and assist counsel in the defense. In forming his opinion, the witness relied in part on defendant‟s answers to questions regarding his orientation to time and place, and on his ability to make abstract determinations and engage in higher levels of thinking, both inconsistent with severe mental illness. Dr. Cavanaugh also based his opinion on defendant‟s statements concerning the function of persons involved in the legal proceedings, especially defense counsel and the prosecutor. Dr. Cavanaugh noted defendant‟s preoccupation with religion but did not find it delusional in the sense of being a fixed false belief that does not relate to a person‟s culture and is not modifiable by reason. Rather, Dr. Cavanaugh found the religious preoccupation authentic. Dr. Cavanaugh believed defendant had grasped examples he had given of alibi, mistaken identity, or mistake of fact 20 defenses, although defendant quickly moved on to his preoccupation with God in responses to questions about defenses. Dr. Cavanaugh found that the religious preoccupation got in the way of defendant‟s responses, but that if questions were posed repeatedly in different ways, defendant usually responded. Dr. Cavanaugh acknowledged that there were some things defendant did not want to talk about, especially past history that involved negative material, but the witness testified that he believed defendant had the mental capacity, if not subjective willingness, to discuss the issues and to assist his attorneys in conducting his defense. Dr. Cavanaugh believed there was not substantial evidence that defendant suffered from a current major mental illness or delusion at the time of the interview, diagnosing instead a mood disorder, most likely major depressive disorder, possibly with psychotic features, that was currently in substantial or complete remission. Defendant did not show many, if any signs of depression although he displayed the personality disorders of paranoid and narcissistic traits. Defendant was “cognitively intact” and had a good memory. On cross-examination, Dr. Cavanaugh testified that he had performed many competency exams, and in the vast majority he has found the defendant incompetent to stand trial, mostly because of psychosis. Dr. Cavanaugh also acknowledged he had interviewed defendant only once, in February 2004,3 that his opinion concerned defendant‟s competency at that 3 It was stipulated that only one interview with defendant had been authorized for Dr. Cavanaugh. The stipulation was entered during the competency trial when a dispute emerged between the parties concerning whether the defense could ask Dr. Cavanaugh whether he had asked for any further visits. In discussing the proposed stipulation, the People argued that only one visit had been authorized and blamed the defense for requesting continuances that caused the delay between Dr. Cavanaugh‟s interview and the competency trial, also suggesting that Dr. Cavanaugh should see defendant that very day or over the (footnote continued on next page) 21 time, and that he did “not have a current opinion about [defendant‟s] competence.” Dr. Cavanaugh also acknowledged that during the interview, when defendant became less responsive he mostly turned to “high levels of abstraction about God and religion.” On redirect examination, Dr. Cavanaugh explained that in his opinion, defendant‟s reference to hearing God‟s voice was consistent with religious fervor, not hallucination. Dr. Cavanaugh considered some of defendant‟s responses evasive. It seemed to him that it was questions about the crime or other negative matters that caused defendant to launch into religious speeches. A transcript of a recording of Dr. Cavanaugh‟s tape-recorded interview with defendant was admitted in evidence and the tape was played for the jury. It plainly demonstrated defendant‟s intact memory as well as his repeated express refusals to discuss the crime, his personal history, or any other matters he considered “negative.” It also illustrated his settled view that the temporal trial was insignificant compared with God‟s judgment. The transcript also reflects, however, that defendant understood he had counsel, and that their job was to help him. When asked how counsel would help him, he said they were representing him. He said the prosecutor was against him, and the judge was “monitoring what‟s going on.” When asked what happens to someone who is found guilty in court, defendant said “I don‟t want to discuss that.” He entered a not guilty plea because he had been told to, but he repeated that God was the true judge. Defendant had heard his might be a death penalty (footnote continued from previous page) weekend. Defense counsel responded that they would not permit the “disruption” of an examination in the middle of the competency trial and argued that discovery had closed. 22 case, but he didn‟t worry about it, trusting instead in God. He also trusted his attorneys, but said he wanted his attorneys just to leave things in God‟s hands. He didn‟t want to talk about what had happened, or about feeling suicidal, or about his work life, or about how people may have done bad things to him. He added, “You seem to care what happened in all my life . . . I just don‟t want to remember it . . . . I‟m really want[ing] to forgive . . . .” Defendant described a witness as “a person who sees something and says that this happened or that happened.” He described a jury as “people up there that is trying to see how you are, the person who‟s being tried, and what happened and they are who decides if that person [did?] something that is completely wrong . . . .” When asked what a lawyer should do for a client who said he wasn‟t at the scene of the crime, he said “I‟d just tell the truth,” and that “obviously he would tell them he was somewhere else . . . . [t]he lawyer [would] tell the truth that he wasn‟t there.” When asked how he, if he were the lawyer, would prove the alibi, he said, “Investigate it . . . get the real facts.” When asked what a lawyer should do for a client who said he was present at the crime but it was another person who committed the crime, he said “I guess he has to prove that he was there but he didn‟t do it.” When asked what the lawyer should do for a client who said he was at the scene, but that the victim was lying about what he did and a witness had been present, defendant said “they all have to prove, I guess, what really happened, and that‟s here and now.” He immediately went on to state his view that “we‟ve got nothing to prove against God . . . . He can prove a lot of stuff against us . . . [b]ut I‟m willing to accept . . . whatever it is that He has for me. It doesn‟t matter what it is, I‟m trusting him and I want to go His way . . . . That‟s why I‟m chained up.” The prosecution also presented evidence that some months subsequent to the Cavanaugh interview, on May 30 and June 1, 2004, defendant engaged in 23 telephone conversations with his sons, with Cindi (by the time of trial no longer his wife), and with his former sister-in-law, Patricia. In the taped conversations with his sons, he opened with practical and entirely rational inquiries, including questions concerning whether the house had been painted, his sons‟ friends, eating habits, and daily activities, as well as directives regarding their relationships with Cindi‟s new boyfriend, Jesus. For example, he said: “Listen son, I just talked with that . . . that Jesus. He says that he supports you and that the phone is [in] his name, and that is why I should not be bothering no one, and all of that. I do not need to be listening to his nonsense. I told him to go and fuck his mother. Soon things are going to be fucked up for him. He does not have to go around pulling this kind of shit. Son, I told him to stay away from you guys. If you want to be with him . . . very well, I have to respect that. I am only telling you to take care, not to be with those people. I am telling you, the only thing that they are going to do is harm you. Because the only thing that they are doing . . . is for their convenience, ok my love.” In conversation with Cindi, he directed her not to interfere with his relationship with his sons and to keep them away from Jesus, and he threatened her with violence if she failed to abide by his wishes in this respect. In the phone conversation with Cindi‟s sister, Patricia Gonzalez, defendant debated some of the circumstances of the charged offenses, suggesting she and the rest of Cindi‟s family bore some responsibility for the crimes because they had failed to help him when he was distressed, or to intervene in Cindi‟s relationship with Camarino Chavez, a relationship defendant insisted had been conducted at his mother-in-law‟s home under his sons‟ eyes. As noted in connection with the sanity phase evidence, when defendant told Patricia not to lie or engage in hypocrisy, Patricia said he was the only one who was lying, by saying he was crazy. Defendant said he was not crazy. Patricia said 24 his attorneys were saying that he was, but defendant responded: “That is the attorneys‟ and the district attorney‟s and of all of us‟s game . . . because we agreed. We are playing with that.” He concluded with more complaints about not being in contact with his children, and talked about God and death as offering peace. The prosecution also presented testimony by Dr. Trompetter, the clinical psychologist retained by the prosecution. He had observed defendant at the police station on the morning after the murders. Dr. Trompetter witnessed the police interrogation of defendant and saw no sign of psychosis or delusion. In addition, Calvin Watson, a custodial deputy for the Stanislaus County Sheriff‟s Department, testified he had brief conversations with defendant when passing by his cell. Watson‟s last contact with defendant was seven months to one year prior to the competency trial. According to Watson, defendant was able to communicate his needs, for example, asking for a cell change or responding to simple questions. Defendant had been in the jail approximately three years and had not been a problem inmate. Watson‟s longest conversation with defendant was about two minutes. Finally, Debbie Mandujamo, a psychiatric nurse working in the Stanislaus County Jail, testified that jail records indicated the last time defendant was seen by mental health workers at the jail was September 26, 2003, more than one year prior to the competency trial but shortly before Dr. Stewart‟s and Dr. Zimmerman‟s competency examinations. At that time defendant was not taking medications, nor had any medication been prescribed subsequently. She had no recollection of having difficulty communicating with him.