Found Deceased WA - Jenise Wright, 6, Bremerton, 2 Aug 2014 - #10 *Arrest*

[Jules71]

Terry Griffin ‏@TerryKIRO7 4m4 minutes ago
Attny for Gabriel Gaeta asking for more time to evaluate competency. Prosecutor: "we've been waiting and waiting"

View attachment 60560

Terry Griffin ‏@TerryKIRO7 35s35 seconds ago
#BREAKING Accused of rape/murder of 6 y/o Jenise Wright in #Bremerton, Gabriel Gaeta in court for competency hearing

View attachment 60561

Terry Griffin ‏@TerryKIRO7 1m1 minute ago
The media restrictions on showing the face of accused #Bremerton murder suspect Gabriel Gaeta have been lifted.

View attachment 60558

https://twitter.com/TerryKIRO7

Wonder is he has been covering his face so we can't see defensive wounds on his face from Jenise. Doesn't it look like that might be the case?

 

[psyquestor]

There are photos taken of GG afterwards that have not revealed any defensive wounds iirc. IMHO this was only due to his juvenile status up until the point he was officially charged as an adult.

 

[newone]

There are photos taken of GG afterwards that have not revealed any defensive wounds iirc. IMHO this was only due to his juvenile status up until the point he was officially charged as an adult.

MOO -- one would wonder if there were any marks on his body that were not revealed in photos --

 

[EmmaRose]

Right!?!?! Havent we been waiting all this time for an evaluation? Only to be now told, after 18000 continuances that he won't answer? Then, lets move forward. He is considered competent. I hate legal games.

Yeah. No point in even having the evaluation if he's gonna dummy up. Disgusted.

 

[newone]

Yeah. No point in even having the evaluation if he's gonna dummy up. Disgusted.

His original attorney was the one who indicated to the Judge at his first court appearance that he would be requesting the medical evaluation so one wonders why his second attorney would say her client wouldn't be answering questions during the medical evaluation?

If the second attorney feels that a medical evaluation isn't necessary why not just say so.....

Is it possible for an attorney to attend a medical evaluation if there is a concern that the client may be asked questions attorney doesn't feel appropriate?


malingering or feigning mental illness is considered obstruction to justice according to the fast link of Wikipedia and may add length to the sentence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competency_evaluation_(law)#Feigning_incompetence

IF he is found incompetent then:

"Once defendants are found incompetent, they may have only
limited rights to refuse treatment. Medication is the most
common form of treatment, although some jurisdictions have
established treatment programs designed to increase understanding
of the legal process,"

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr37/cr37-2/CR37-2ZapfRoesch.pdf

 

[EmmaRose]

What am I missing?

Wouldn't the defence want their client to be found incompetent? Wouldn't that be in their favour? Why stall? For some reason I'm just not getting it. Who asked for the competency evaluation in the first place?

I watched that video of GG in court. He looked like he'd been crying. Maybe pulling the same stunt that he did when he was first arrested. There's nothing in his face. He's cold. There's nothing there. I can't put my finger on the word to describe his demeanour.

He gives me the creeps.

Maybe he thinks crying will win him some sympathy and maybe he thinks he can play the innocent kid like he may have at home. Not a chance in he**. Great. This is all we need... Someone telling GG to keep his mouth shut--he already knows how to do that quite well--wouldn't open his mouth to get swabbed.... Who's the victim here? Someone's gotta tell GG it isn't him.

 

[EmmaRose]

His original attorney was the one who indicated to the Judge at his first court appearance that he would be requesting the medical evaluation so one wonders why his second attorney would say her client wouldn't be answering questions during the medical evaluation?

If the second attorney feels that a medical evaluation isn't necessary why not just say so.....

Is it possible for an attorney to attend a medical evaluation if there is a concern that the client may be asked questions attorney doesn't feel appropriate?


malingering or feigning mental illness is considered obstruction to justice according to the fast link of Wikipedia and may add length to the sentence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competency_evaluation_(law)#Feigning_incompetence

IF he is found incompetent then:

"Once defendants are found incompetent, they may have only
limited rights to refuse treatment. Medication is the most
common form of treatment, although some jurisdictions have
established treatment programs designed to increase understanding
of the legal process,"

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr37/cr37-2/CR37-2ZapfRoesch. pdf

Great questions, newone! Sure do wish I had the answers. I think the judge is going well out of her way to be super fair to the defense. I think if I were the judge, I would have said that they have had their chance and proceedings will move forward without the comp evaluation, since your client won't be talking.

 

[MsMarple]

His original attorney was the one who indicated to the Judge at his first court appearance that he would be requesting the medical evaluation so one wonders why his second attorney would say her client wouldn't be answering questions during the medical evaluation?

If the second attorney feels that a medical evaluation isn't necessary why not just say so.....

Is it possible for an attorney to attend a medical evaluation if there is a concern that the client may be asked questions attorney doesn't feel appropriate?


malingering or feigning mental illness is considered obstruction to justice according to the fast link of Wikipedia and may add length to the sentence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competency_evaluation_(law)#Feigning_incompetence

IF he is found incompetent then:

"Once defendants are found incompetent, they may have only
limited rights to refuse treatment. Medication is the most
common form of treatment, although some jurisdictions have
established treatment programs designed to increase understanding
of the legal process,"

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr37/cr37-2/CR37-2ZapfRoesch.pdf

Thanks for that! I thought it was the prosecution who requested the evaluation and defense agreed but I could be wrong. If I am then yeah, WTH is the new attorney thinking?

I don't see any good reason why GG's competency evaluation hasn't been done. Maybe everyone involved is just dragging their heels. It seems to me if GG's attorney is encouraging him to not cooperate then she may be in contempt of court. Where's our resident lawyer?

In the meantime, for the bored and restless, here's some info. Most of it's blahblahblah, but I found parts interesting.

Washington continues to lag behind the timeline goal set by Substitute Senate Bill 6492 (SSB 6492), passed in 2012, which requires competency evaluations to be completed within 7 to 21 days, depending on where the evaluation is to be done.

Some reasons for delays apart from lack of personnel or beds:

--A defendant has the right to have his attorney present during his competency evaluation. While the defendant may not want his attorney present when the evaluation is scheduled, a defendant may change his mind once the evaluation is underway. If so, the hospital must schedule a new evaluation with the attorney present.

-- The defendant may be uncooperative with the evaluator.

-- An evaluator may begin an evaluation but determine that it cannot be completed in an outpatient setting and requires additional observation in an inpatient setting.

Furthermore, here's what the assessor is expected to determine:

-- Defendant has mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place, and things. Defendant’s elementary mental processes are such that he apprehends that::

-- He is in a Court of Justice charged with a criminal offense;

-- There is a judge on the bench;

-- A prosecutor is present who will try to convict the defendant of a criminal charge;

-- A lawyer will undertake to defend him against that charge;

-- The defendant will be expected to tell his lawyer the circumstances, to the best of his mental ability, the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the law violation is alleged to have been committed;

-- There is, or will be, a jury present to pass upon evidence as to his guilt or innocence of such charge; and

-- He has memory sufficient to relate those things in his own personal manner.

Not exactly rocket science...

http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAn...ompetencytoStandTrialPhaseIBriefingReport.pdf

 

[newone]

Thanks for that! I thought it was the prosecution who requested the evaluation and defense agreed but I could be wrong. If I am then yeah, WTH is the new attorney thinking?

I don't see any good reason why GG's competency evaluation hasn't been done. Maybe everyone involved is just dragging their heels. It seems to me if GG's attorney is encouraging him to not cooperate then she may be in contempt of court. Where's our resident lawyer?

In the meantime, for the bored and restless, here's some info. Most of it's blahblahblah, but I found parts interesting.

Washington continues to lag behind the timeline goal set by Substitute Senate Bill 6492 (SSB 6492), passed in 2012, which requires competency evaluations to be completed within 7 to 21 days, depending on where the evaluation is to be done.

Some reasons for delays apart from lack of personnel or beds:

--A defendant has the right to have his attorney present during his competency evaluation. While the defendant may not want his attorney present when the evaluation is scheduled, a defendant may change his mind once the evaluation is underway. If so, the hospital must schedule a new evaluation with the attorney present.

-- The defendant may be uncooperative with the evaluator.

-- An evaluator may begin an evaluation but determine that it cannot be completed in an
outpatient setting and requires additional observation in an inpatient setting.

Furthermore, here's what the assessor is expected to determine:

-- Defendant has mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place, and things. Defendant’s elementary mental processes are such that he apprehends that::

-- He is in a Court of Justice charged with a criminal offense;

-- There is a judge on the bench;

-- A prosecutor is present who will try to convict the defendant of a criminal charge;

-- A lawyer will undertake to defend him against that charge;

-- The defendant will be expected to tell his lawyer the circumstances, to the best of his mental ability, the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the law violation is alleged to have been committed;

-- There is, or will be, a jury present to pass upon evidence as to his guilt or innocence of such charge; and

-- He has memory sufficient to relate those things in his own personal manner.

Not exactly rocket science...

http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAn...ompetencytoStandTrialPhaseIBriefingReport.pdf

Doesn't sound complicated at all based on the information provided by you! In fact it doesn't sound any more complicated than a roadside sobriety field test!

 

[amberjul]

I have a theory about the competency exam and lack thereof.

GG was on "various" antidepressants prior to the killing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYjEaIef0SM

He is 17 years old. As has become common knowledge, teenagers on antidepressants face serious risks if the dosage isn't correct, from suicidal ideation to, as the defense in this case may attempt to prove, homicide.

I think that is why the Prosecution is patient, the judge patient, and most importantly why the new defense attorney states GG won't be speaking at the competency exam. If he says any one single thing, he admits it was not the antidepressants that led him to kill.

Furthermore, that jacket over the head thing. Following my theory, it's to prevent him from further trauma, or to prevent the public from seeing how wigged out he is, or because he hasn't been charged and is under legal age. Things are taking a long time because doctors may be attempting to stabilize him IF the meds he was taking in any way prompted him to kill. This is a possibility.

This is the only conclusion I can make of all this. The defense is attempting to blame the drug manufacturer and/or anyone involved in prescribing the medications GG was on prior to the killing.

This does not justify what he did. It is simply from a defense point of view. Also, legal things take a really long time, and the more complex cases even longer.

JMO

 

[EmmaRose]

Thanks for that! I thought it was the prosecution who requested the evaluation and defense agreed but I could be wrong. If I am then yeah, WTH is the new attorney thinking?

I don't see any good reason why GG's competency evaluation hasn't been done. Maybe everyone involved is just dragging their heels. It seems to me if GG's attorney is encouraging him to not cooperate then she may be in contempt of court. Where's our resident lawyer?

In the meantime, for the bored and restless, here's some info. Most of it's blahblahblah, but I found parts interesting.

Washington continues to lag behind the timeline goal set by Substitute Senate Bill 6492 (SSB 6492), passed in 2012, which requires competency evaluations to be completed within 7 to 21 days, depending on where the evaluation is to be done.

Some reasons for delays apart from lack of personnel or beds:

--A defendant has the right to have his attorney present during his competency evaluation. While the defendant may not want his attorney present when the evaluation is scheduled, a defendant may change his mind once the evaluation is underway. If so, the hospital must schedule a new evaluation with the attorney present.

-- The defendant may be uncooperative with the evaluator.

-- An evaluator may begin an evaluation but determine that it cannot be completed in an outpatient setting and requires additional observation in an inpatient setting.

Furthermore, here's what the assessor is expected to determine:

-- Defendant has mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place, and things. Defendant’s elementary mental processes are such that he apprehends that::

-- He is in a Court of Justice charged with a criminal offense;

-- There is a judge on the bench;

-- A prosecutor is present who will try to convict the defendant of a criminal charge;

-- A lawyer will undertake to defend him against that charge;

-- The defendant will be expected to tell his lawyer the circumstances, to the best of his mental ability, the facts surrounding him at the time and place where the law violation is alleged to have been committed;

-- There is, or will be, a jury present to pass upon evidence as to his guilt or innocence of such charge; and

-- He has memory sufficient to relate those things in his own personal manner.

Not exactly rocket science...

http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAn...ompetencytoStandTrialPhaseIBriefingReport.pdf

Thanks for this, Miss Marple. All this hoohaa over asking him THOSE questions?? So haul him into court, ask him "where are you? Have him point to his lawyer, the prosecutor and so on. Who needs a team of psychiatrists to figure this out??? I must be losing my mind.

 

[MsMarple]

I have a theory about the competency exam and lack thereof.

GG was on "various" antidepressants prior to the killing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYjEaIef0SM

He is 17 years old. As has become common knowledge, teenagers on antidepressants face serious risks if the dosage isn't correct, from suicidal ideation to, as the defense in this case may attempt to prove, homicide.

I think that is why the Prosecution is patient, the judge patient, and most importantly why the new defense attorney states GG won't be speaking at the competency exam. If he says any one single thing, he admits it was not the antidepressants that led him to kill.

Furthermore, that jacket over the head thing. Following my theory, it's to prevent him from further trauma, or to prevent the public from seeing how wigged out he is, or because he hasn't been charged and is under legal age. Things are taking a long time because doctors may be attempting to stabilize him IF the meds he was taking in any way prompted him to kill. This is a possibility.

This is the only conclusion I can make of all this. The defense is attempting to blame the drug manufacturer and/or anyone involved in prescribing the medications GG was on prior to the killing.

This does not justify what he did. It is simply from a defense point of view. Also, legal things take a really long time, and the more complex cases even longer.

JMO

I have to admit I snickered at your theory at first :blushing: but I did do a little research and sure enough, there are cases where antidepressants were used as a defense. The successful cases – where the defendant was acquitted or given a reduced sentence - involved violence, as opposed to sexual violence, so if GG's lawyer has something along those lines in mind she'll have her work cut out for her.

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/com...tidepressant-intoxication-legal-defenses.html

In Murders, Minors, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and the Involuntary Intoxication Defense, sexual assaults resulting from side effects of antidepressants were discussed but, unlike GG, in the cases cited the perpetrators had previous criminal histories or histories of mental or physical (i.e. brain damage) problems. It concluded:

Thus, it is plausible but unproved that SRRI's may infrequently contribute to the occurrence of both irritable and sex-related aggression. Yet other risk factors in combination with SRRI treatment likely are needed to set the stage for the elicitation of an intensified and distorted aggressive drive that culminates in violence.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/26/3/487.full.pdf

 

[Mountaingazer]

Is this setting him up for appeals later? Can he later claim his lawyer gave bad council or impeded his right to a speedy trial?

 

[newone]

Is this setting him up for appeals later? Can he later claim his lawyer gave bad council or impeded his right to a speedy trial?

I was wondering about the speedy trial aspect myself.....contrasting that with plain old greed for billable hours ((MOO))

 

[2Hope4]

Look at what showed up when I clink the link for an article:
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/AE...p4?versionId=evBf_TMrE9mSOROLDPgEYW2Be851u7cN

<Code>InvalidArgument</Code>


Yup, I agree... Invalid Argument. Set the trial date and lets get this case moving along!! Won't answer questions for an evaluation...I've never heard of such! Sure you have the right to silence, and the right to not incriminate yourself, but this is just beyond craziness! Invalid Argument attorney, try again!

 

[newone]

Look at what showed up when I clink the link for an article:
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/AE...p4?versionId=evBf_TMrE9mSOROLDPgEYW2Be851u7cN

<Code>InvalidArgument</Code>


Yup, I agree... Invalid Argument. Set the trial date and lets get this case moving along!! Won't answer questions for an evaluation...I've never heard of such! Sure you have the right to silence, and the right to not incriminate yourself, but this is just beyond craziness! Invalid Argument attorney, try again!

interesting that you got that invalid code message -- I just got the video when I clicked on your link

 

[loveisthemovement]

Every delay must feel like another kick in the stomach to the Wright family. Justice is coming Jenise.

 

[amberjul]

I have to admit I snickered at your theory at first :blushing: but I did do a little research and sure enough, there are cases where antidepressants were used as a defense. The successful cases – where the defendant was acquitted or given a reduced sentence - involved violence, as opposed to sexual violence, so if GG's lawyer has something along those lines in mind she'll have her work cut out for her.

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/com...tidepressant-intoxication-legal-defenses.html

In Murders, Minors, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and the Involuntary Intoxication Defense, sexual assaults resulting from side effects of antidepressants were discussed but, unlike GG, in the cases cited the perpetrators had previous criminal histories or histories of mental or physical (i.e. brain damage) problems. It concluded:

Thus, it is plausible but unproved that SRRI's may infrequently contribute to the occurrence of both irritable and sex-related aggression. Yet other risk factors in combination with SRRI treatment likely are needed to set the stage for the elicitation of an intensified and distorted aggressive drive that culminates in violence.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/26/3/487.full.pdf

I was a bit surprised when the notion came to my own mind ! I thought I would get this :jail: from my fellow Sleuthers, lol!

The theory is simply based on the attitudes on the part of Bar Members; something patient and calm about them. Please don't translate that as "sympathy" for the defendant, or that I perceive they have sympathy. I am a mental health advocate, and frankly there are mentally ill defendants who receive no justice when convicted of crimes wherein it is clear that medication and / or mental illness influenced the crime. As the most recent example I look to the tragic case of Julie Schenecker. There is a difference in "pleading" insanity, and actually being insane; I cried when Ms. Schenecker was convicted, she is clearly a severely ill woman.

GG's refusals to talk could be a display of the severity of a mental illness; again, we'll have to see how things pan out in the case.

I am happily reading the links. About the lawyer, we'll see if she has any "ambitions" up her sleeve as things pan out.

Thank you for responding, your honest sincerity, and the links!

 

[newone]

I respect the possibility of ''mental illness'' but am leaning at this point more towards an entitled spoiled brat who is playing Mr Macho - a person who has gotten his own way by being a bully. (MOO)

He's possibly advised his lawyer that he won't answer questions possibly because he barely answers hers??

He may be just a bad seed .... with a very bad attitude.

 

[Tealgrove]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/gabriel-gaeta-jenise-wright_n_5672724.html

According to this article in the Huffington Post it was the Prosecution who requested a mental health evaluation NOT the Defence.

Now it makes sense.

The Defence may be formulating a mental illness defence and doesn't want GG to be found OK or....there is something they want to keep hidden until they get to trial about his meds or condition.