Butting in...
Isn't Arizona one of the states that differentiates between confinement for punishment vs. treatment when determining credit for time served? I'd have thought "no".
Well, you get credit for any time that you are in custody by reason of the charges against you. No credit for, e.g., treatment required by probation or civil commitment to protect society. But I believe restoration time counts as being in custody by reason of the charges against you, because the only purpose of the restoration is to get you well enough to stand trial.
hi az... so now that she's been found incompetent, and maybe/maybe not restorable (we'll know in august), what happens? the below article says they will have to DROP charges against her if found not restorable?? so she will be free to go? spend some time in a hospital, maybe recover, and walk as a free person because she was incompetent when she maybe killed someone??? shocking...
if this is the way it works, wouldn't all murderers act insane, plead insanity and skip trial, get freed, spend some time in a hospital, and then start over and then maybe kill someone again cuz... they can get away with it? after all, they did it cuz they were 'incompetent' right? i actually hope she really went mad after she did this to her son, that would be justice in a way. but if she was faking it... or recovers right after the charges are dropped... then does that mean she is above the law??
Superior Court spokesman Vincent Funari said there will be another hearing August 12 to decide the length and conditions of the rehabilitative process, which could take up to nine months.
If after that time, doctors are unable to restore her to competency, a judge must drop charges against her and commit her to state hospital.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/20100603tempe-baby-garbriel-mother.html
Wait... she WAS found restorable...I think. :waitasec: Or do you mean she will maybe/maybe not
actually get "restored" to competency? If she actually can't get "restored" in the prescribed time period, then charges will be dropped. But the statutes seem to say the time period is 15-21 mos., not 9 mos. I don't know where the 9 mos. came from in that article--unless the doctors who examined her said that they believed she could be restored in 9 mos.
I believe the charges are dropped "without prejudice" even if a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial and cannot be restored. Thus, they could be refiled if the statute of limitations has not passed. For murder, I believe there is no statute of limitations in any state, so a murderer could not "get away with it" through the method you suggest.
Keep in mind there has been no finding that she was incompetent, much less insane, when whatever happened to Gabriel happened. And I seriously don't think she was incompetent to stand trial back at the first hearing where she appeared and asked about getting a lawyer, etc. Back then, and in the recorded conversation with TPS and the reporter, I thought she showed clear and logical thinking. This incompetence to stand trial has developed within the last few months IMHO.
Supposedly it is "impossible" to fake incompetency. Whatever. I think I could do it. :crazy: But not for 15-21 months.
AZ Lawyer....Now that EJ has been found incompetent to stand trial, why hasn't TPS been charged with taking advantage of a vulnarable adult and abuse. She obviously facilitated this whole thing and admitted in the phone conversation that she told EJ to go to a shelter. Also, how is EJ considered incompetent when she admitted that everything TPS told her to do was illegal.
Why are the courts not concerned with where Gabriel is? It seens all they are worried about is making sure TPS and EJ have due processs, but are not recognizing the rights of G?
First of all, there has been no finding that EJ was incompetent back in Dec. 2009 or any other time period before the day of her examination. Second, incompetence to stand trial is not the same thing as being a "vulnerable adult" for purposes of the vulnerable adult statute. Third, there are lots more elements to the vulnerable adult statute, and they are not present here.
EJ's knowledge that things were illegal (did she admit this?) does IMO prove that she was not "insane" at that time. But insanity and incompetence to stand trial are not the same thing. Also, she has only been found incompetent to stand trial NOW, as I mentioned above. She might have been perfectly competent to stand trial until, let's say, a month or so back when she started thinking the jail was feeding her worms.
The court is definitely concerned about where Gabriel is. It would be easier to answer your question if you could tell me what you think the court could/should do to find him.