Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #49

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know she is a doctor and has probably seen many different types of personalities and people but she may reduce those hours once she meets with LS...that’s just MOO... she may view her as a challenge who knows ... but omg I couldn’t listen to her that many hours .
 
Lovethesouth said:
I know she is a doctor and has probably seen many different types of personalities and people but she may reduce those hours once she meets with LS...that’s just MOO... she may view her as a challenge who knows ... but omg I couldn’t listen to her that many hours .
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link @Lovethesouth.

It sounds like to me from reading the posted document the main reason the defense is requesting the evaluator be approved for 30 hours instead of for merely the statutorily automatic 10 hours is because of the extraordinary amount of discovery she'll have to read in order to do her job. I don't see how a professional could truly evaluate whether a defendant understands the case against her without knowing herself exactly what that case entails. And last March a number of us gasped when the DA noted the huge amount of discovery. (There's even more now than there was then. Autopsy findings for one, planned "broom escape" findings, first competency evaluation findings...)

The case was delayed and hearings delayed in the spring and early summer because the state failed to provide all the discovery to the defense by the date set by the court. And while "hide the discovery" is a frequent ploy used by the state to disadvantage the other side, in this case I think the legally-required hand-over was complicated by COVID and by the copious amount of discovery.

I'm not sure this request means the evaluator will spend "extra time" with LS, just that extra prep time is needed so her time with LS can be properly focused.

I can't imagine this request will be denied...we're talking about only an extra $3000, really small potatoes given the general costs of criminal justice.

JMO
 
NCWatcher said:
I'm not sure about medical privacy not applying at all in these cases. There are gradations. And there is a big difference between a summary report containing an expert's professional opinion/recommendations following an evaluation and a many hours-long videotape of an evaluation just as there would be a big difference between an autopsy report and a videotape of the actual autopsy. (And if there wasn't a difference, the DA wouldn't be asking for a recording!)

As a general rule, for example, in a psych eval, raw data and test responses typically aren't supplied in the report. Further, even in cases where a mental health evaluation can be recorded (or must be like under that new CO statute) cameras are typically turned off during adminstration of certain copyrighted tests to ensure security, integrity, and validity of the tests. While that limitation doesn't relate to medical privacy, it shows there are limits to videotaping even when videotaping is required.

I'm not sure what you mean by using "competency as a defense." The bill that was enacted in 2017 requiring recording explicitly addressed "insanity" and "diminished capacity" defense evals. And the appended research note indicated the bill doesn't apply to competency evals. As the defense brief notes though, a bill's research note from its sponsors isn't part of the statute itself. So the words used in the actual statute must apply. And the word "competency" apparently does not appear in the bill.

It sounds like you believe recording of LS's competency evaluations should be allowed from your responses. And that's fine. I do think the defense attorneys dropped the ball by not objecting sooner as it does make it appear the only issue is that the judge cited the wrong statute. I think there's a bit more to the issue.

Regardless, it's still not clear to me why people on WS think recordings should be done and delivered to all parties. For example, how do people square 5th amendment issues with required recording of a pre-trial competency eval? (Not the other types of evals the defense can choose to pursue to use during the actual case as part of the defense, but pre-trial competency-- an issue that a jury will never be called upon to judge.) That's what I don't get.

JMO
Click to expand...

I have to agree that recording the competency eval in this instance is a non-issue. I believe it was done for the convenience of the evaluators and not for any judicial purpose. Motion not to record the second evaluation is on record, and I think it's done. The judge has already ordered that the recording of the first evaluation not be viewed and I believe that request will probably stand.

The competency eval is a pre-trial matter and the only effect it has on this case is with the court schedule. The trial schedule is either delayed or continues normal practice.

MOO
 
Seattle1 said:
I have to agree that recording the competency eval in this instance is a non-issue. I believe it was done for the convenience of the evaluators and not for any judicial purpose. Motion not to record the second evaluation is on record, and I think it's done. The judge has already ordered that the recording of the first evaluation not be viewed and I believe that request will probably stand.

The competency eval is a pre-trial matter and the only effect it has on this case is with the court schedule. The trial schedule is either delayed or continues normal practice.

MOO
Click to expand...
The issue will come up if the defense picked and requested evaluator decides that LS is not competent.

At that point the defense will request to see the court appointed video so they can pick it apart.
 
missingm said:
The issue will come up if the defense picked and requested evaluator decides that LS is not competent.

At that point the defense will request to see the court appointed video so they can pick it apart.
Click to expand...
Now that would be tragic considering LS was deemed competent when evaluated as an inpatient at the best facility in the state compared to the pending jailhouse evaluation not to exceed 30 hours!
 
missingm said:
The issue will come up if the defense picked and requested evaluator decides that LS is not competent.

At that point the defense will request to see the court appointed video so they can pick it apart.
Click to expand...

BBM

Maybe.

But it's the state that's asking for taping of the pre-trial competency evaluations and asking for pre-trial access to the tapes, not the defense. The defense is arguing that competency evals shouldn't be videotaped at all which as I've said, makes sense to me. So I don't think that's the defense's plan. Might be the state's.

But if the judge doesn't make a decision based on the two conflicting reports (assuming they are in conflict), I'd think it would be more likely there would be a third eval (vs attorneys pretending to be psychiatrists to persuade the judge.)

JMO
 
NCWatcher said:
Thanks for the link @Lovethesouth.

It sounds like to me from reading the posted document the main reason the defense is requesting the evaluator be approved for 30 hours instead of for merely the statutorily automatic 10 hours is because of the extraordinary amount of discovery she'll have to read in order to do her job. I don't see how a professional could truly evaluate whether a defendant understands the case against her without knowing herself exactly what that case entails. And last March a number of us gasped when the DA noted the huge amount of discovery. (There's even more now than there was then. Autopsy findings for one, planned "broom escape" findings, first competency evaluation findings...)

The case was delayed and hearings delayed in the spring and early summer because the state failed to provide all the discovery to the defense by the date set by the court. And while "hide the discovery" is a frequent ploy used by the state to disadvantage the other side, in this case I think the legally-required hand-over was complicated by COVID and by the copious amount of discovery.

I'm not sure this request means the evaluator will spend "extra time" with LS, just that extra prep time is needed so her time with LS can be properly focused.

I can't imagine this request will be denied...we're talking about only an extra $3000, really small potatoes given the general costs of criminal justice.

JMO
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you are saying I was speaking from my perspective...imo the doc will have her work cut out for her .. I admire her and wish her well .
 
Lovethesouth said:
Memorial service for Gannon today here in his home county ... his memory is still alive .. his family and friends are still heart broken.

WPDE
I hope you can find the on their page
Click to expand...
thank you @Lovethesouth It is looking like this will be one long ride (and not the motorcycle memorial ride- you posted) but the trial and antics of LS. I reposted the link to the ride you tried to post. Most appreciated. I agree the focus needs to be back on the victim GANNON.

I for one will look at 11:11 differently whether it be morning or evening.

It will no longer be the quirky weird glance at the clock, where you smile, thinking how odd. It will always be a reminder of a young life lost too soon. I will always see it in blue. I will remember GANNON.

When the bluebonnets bloom in Texas it will always remind me of GANNON.

Here's a field for the G-Man and for you @Lovethesouth.


Texas-Bluebonnets-Spring-02-TXBLOOMS0316.jpg


Motorcycle ride, memorial service for Gannon Stauch happening in Horry County
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 2,096 (members: 62, guests: 2,034)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
2,034
Total visitors
2,096
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,089
Messages
18,134,518
Members
231,231
Latest member
timbo1966
Back
Top