Hey
@SleuthBee,
My views come from having experience in the field of psychology and having known some attorneys fairly well in the past. Not from being an attorney. So my opinions and predictions may not be borne out.
But I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking me. My response to
@missingm that you quoted was based on her post saying the tapes would come into play if competency eval #2 says TS was incompetent. ("Says" may be the wrong word for me to use. The judge decides, not the evaluator.) That the defense would then use the tapes of competency eval #1 to pick that eval apart. And that could happen, I guess, but it was never the defense asking for taping in the first place. So I doubt that was their plan.
I also doubt (but as I said, as a non-attorney I could be very wrong) the judge is going to entertain arguments from either side focused on trying to show him which psychiatric professional "did their court-ordered competency evaluation wrong." Attorneys argue the law in pre-trial matters and judges decide based on law. Attorneys don't argue that they know better how to do psychiatry/psychology than psychiatrists and psychologists. (And even during a trial, attorneys argue through their expert witnesses,
not as experts themselves.)
It seems much more likely to me IF (big IF) there is a conflict in the findings of the two evals the judge would:
1. Decide on his own based in the reports
OR
2. Question the evaluators himself, then decide
OR
3. Ask for a third eval. If he did that, he'd probably require that an evaluator be found acceptable to both sides.
I'm also not sure how any witnesses to TS's past could be of value (either way) to issues of her current competency. Based on reading various posts on WS, I guess the argument would have to go something like this:
"Despite being a trained forensic evaluator and despite being accustomed to dealing with people involved in the criminal justice system--people who often have a vested interest in the results of a court-ordered evaluation---Evaluator X is either naive or stupid or maybe both and didn't realize he/she was being played by TS. We know that because TS lied to Y and Z in the past and/or had a personality disorder diagnosis in the past."
I just don't think that sort of argument will fly re: TS's competency to stand trial if for no other reason than competency for trial is a "present state" issue. And past liars and the personality-disordered can be incompetent.
So far as an insanity defense goes, that's an entirely different matter. We have no information suggesting that is the planned defense. And current competency or lack thereof has no legal connection to sanity/insanity at the time of the crime (except that, of course, if a trial can't proceed immediately because of the defendant's incompetency, no plea can be entered.)
But even if pleading insanity IS the defense's plan, remember that using that defense reverses the burden of proof. While the burden of proof is usually on the state, the defense has the burden to prove the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. While, of course, the state will refute that claim, the assumption in court is that the defendant was sane at the time of the crime unless and until the defense proves otherwise (just as the usual assumption in court is that a defendant is innocent unless and until the state proves otherwise.)
Using an insanity defense also means, in effect, the defendant has admitted guilt. Not sure TS will do that.
Insanity defenses are successful (on average in the US) about 4% of the time. Many are likely BS and shouldn't succeed. But it's also the case that juries often don't really understand issues of mens rea/intent. The thinking is apparently something like this: "I don't really care what they can prove about what she was thinking or what she intended. That she did it is good enough for me." That kind of thinking happens but it doesn't really comport with a legal
conviction for a crime that
requires finding specific intent as an element.
I think it's helpful also to keep in mind that what the attorneys are doing now may or may not be for later use in open court. They are also trying to "psyc out" the other side, cover their own you-know-whats, and get their story out to the public including the local public (AKA the jury pool.) I know that's a cynical view but I think it's an accurate one. I don't know of a better system than ours, but ours is certainly not perfect.
JMO
stream
