Also,
this source says that:
The judge did not rule on a previous request by the Riverside County Probation Office for a psychological evaluation of Atilano which was objected to by the defense at the July hearing.
The public defender also requested a special visitation for Atilano with his mother, which was granted.
I'm curious why the public defender would be the ones opposing psychological testing. If anything, I'd have thought that they might try thay stance in order to use it as a possible mitigating factor.
Also, I'm curious why the Probation Office is the one requesting the information, though a separate article states it was really the DA's office requesting the testing.
This other article (below) states that it was the DA's office that's requesting one. That, to me, is even more puzzling.
Because of the postponement, there has been no ruling on a request by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office for a 707 fitness hearing. Under section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a juvenile accused of a serious felony may be subject to a fitness hearing, in which the juvenile court judge decides whether to send the juvenile to adult court.
I would really think it'd make more sense for the PD to want to have S's fitness to stand trial soon in order to try and prove he was NOT competent, and thus not able to be tried as adult.
Instead, the DA's office looks like THEY might be calling into question his fitness, which would seem to be contrary to what seems most probable, and that is showing he IS fit for trial as an adult because his punishment would almost certainly be far more severe than if he's proven incapable, and thus he would be locked up for less time (assuming he is found guilty).
It's also odd that (according to the second of the articles in my previous post)
that his mother says that she is visiting him every Sunday, but the court says:
At the request of Atilano's defense attorney, the judge granted Atilano
a visit with his mother, Shawna Smith, and will allow weekly phone calls with the mother.
The discrepany between visits and calls strikes me as odd - especially since one is directly attributed to S's mom's specifics regarding interaction, and the second is directly attributed to the ruling of the judge.