jeni25
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 911
Updated link:
Sorry, they updated and moved Link I first posted. Thus, this one.
Attorneys ask for psych evaluation for Ole Miss murder suspect
GUILTY MS - Alexandria "Ally" Kostial, 21, Ole Miss student found dead, Harmontown, 20 Jul 2019 *ARREST* #2
- Thread starter Seattle1
- Start date
Updated link:
Sorry, they updated and moved Link I first posted. Thus, this one.
Attorneys ask for psych evaluation for Ole Miss murder suspect
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 20,089
- Reaction score
- 55,553
It's a lot easier living with your lying, low-life self if you're on the outside of prison walls. Pleading N-G gave him no problem with his conscience, I'm sure. This ain't his first rodeo, IMO, with declaring N-G in a courtroom.
I'm guessing his attys realized that seeking bail, at least at this time when things are still fresh in people's minds was a non-starter. They'll bide their time...
And of course, here comes the psych side of this horror. But it takes two to tango, and I'm sure the prosecution has been getting their psych expert list ready, as well.
Thanks just watched it. Wonder what the new info is...admitted his guilt? suicidal? He seems pretty competent to me so i’m Not seeing an insanity plea flying. He was pretty competent to answer to the judge anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 670
- Reaction score
- 6,636
Doesn't a psych eval basically scream he did it, but we're going to try everything we can to show he didn't? That's fine with me because I will be livid if they try to turn anything around on her. And so help me if he gets away with this. Grrrr!!!! MOO
Edited for misspelling
Edited for misspelling
Yes JMO but sounds to me like he may have come clean and now they r going to look for a psychiatric explanation...i.e. PTSD, insanity, altered personality
- The M'Naghten Rule - Defendant unable to distinguish between right and wrong or otherwise didn't understand what they did because of a "disease of the mind."
Most people are smart enough not to bother trying an insanity plea, but I suspect this is the defense strategy: have him diagnosed with some type of impulse-control condition, then claim he shot her because he couldn’t help himself.
The idea being that if he is then found not guilty by reason of insanity that he will then be placed in a mental health facility until he is safe enough to be released, at which time his family’s money and reputation will surely purchase him a “completely rehabilitated!” status in a year or so, thereby freeing him to go back to living his spoiled entitled life.
Ha Something like that...or there is always the “Affluenza” plea...
Gardener1850
Timeline Guru (Still Remembering Cupcake)
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2016
- Messages
- 42,099
- Reaction score
- 117,922
He seemed perfectly sane and competent during that hearing. He stood when appropriate and answered the judge that he understood the decision to revoke his bond request and ask for a psych evaluation instead. I think this move shows desperation on the part of his defense. He was seen on video with Ally before her murder. He got caught with her blood on his clothes while fleeing the state. And that's likely just the tip of the iceberg on the evidence they have against him. He is facing the death penalty or life in prison. Not even the most gifted of defense attorneys can make this charge go away. All they can try to do at this point is come up with reasons for his actions that may mitigate his sentence or put him in a psychiatric facility instead of prison for life/death. I doubt this move is going to work in his favor. MOO.
Uhhhg. Ally’s family travelled 300+/- miles for that 5 minute appearance. I know they will want to be present every step of this process & see justice for her, but what a long long painful road with so many desperate wasteful twists & turns. I wish justice were strait-forward. Grief is exhausting, and the pursuit of justice even more so, imo. Their first public statement will air tonight.
I really hope the insanity plea goes nowhere.
Psych eval takes 3+ weeks consisting of several 3 hr sessions. Results 2-4 weeks after that. No clue how long the wait to begin the process. All this for $500- plus travel time I imagine. I wonder what their track record is for insanity in high-profile, deep-pocket cases. And if there is a special evaluator who usually lands these...
Clinical Services
Fees
Question is does it have to be a Miss Certified evaluator because if not something tells me we will be hearing the name of this Texas Psychologist...MOO
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-the-affluenza-defense-31843
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
Sad to see it going down this path but it was a predictable outcome in many respects and had been discussed on this thread and prior threads extensively!The defense team for murder suspect Brandon Theesfeld says their client needs a psychological evaluation
Theesfeld appeared in a bond hearing Thursday morning at the Lafayette County Courthouse.
Ally Kostial | Photo: MGN Online
His attorneys withdrew the request for a bond citing new information, ending the court appearance within minutes of it starting at 9:00.
Defense attorneys request psychological evaluation for Lafayette County murder suspect Brandon Theesfeld
Defense has been dealt a bad deck of cards with BT IMO and so is working within the available options available in our justice system.
Hope the DA is well armed and prepared to deal with the long and ugly walk down this path so that justice for the victim is attained.
MOO
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
IMO they are simply doing all they can to keep BT off of death row.
Seems unavoidable that he won't be in prison for a good portion of his life and so it seems the focus of the defense team and family is to determine to the extent they can where BT will reside.
IMO the forensic evidence must be iron clad and compelling against BT.
Still don't understand why DA/State hasn't brought additional charges in event that AK was in fact pregnant?
MOO
The M’N Rule standard in MS concerns me. In summary...
M'Naghten Rule
-From 1850s England
-Used by majority of states
-Focus is on defendant’s understanding of crime- or right vs wrong at time of crime, not before or after.
-Criticized/challenged heavily because...
a) legal definition of insane not aligned w medical criteria, yet sentenced to medical treatment anyway
b) no distinction for public danger vs no public threat OR for temp insanity vs established mental health issue
c) Easy path to escape punishment for crimes
In other words, insanity is easy to establish & is connected to the crime only. Not how the defendant has functioned prior to the crime. Nothing to do with how the defendant functions after the crime.
Jurors, even if they see right thru this- and they will, will be following instructions to base their verdict per the laws of the state, not common sense or moral justice. I’m concerned about true justice in this case. I hope to be proven very wrong!
afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
State of MS Crim Procedure link:
https://courts.ms.gov/research/rules/msrulesofcourt/Rules of Criminal Procedure Post-070118.pdf
See Rule 12 for Mental Evaluations
Rule 12 Mental Examinations - removed comments to save space (see above link for full Rule 12 with comments).
Rule 12.1 Mental Competency; Definition.
(a) Mental Competency. There is a presumption of mental competency. In order to be deemed mentally competent, a defendant must have the ability to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings, to communicate
59
rationally with the defendant’s attorney about the case, to recall relevant facts, and to testify in the defendant’s own defense, if appropriate. The presence of a mental illness, defect, or disability alone is not grounds for finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial. If as a result of mental illness, defect, or disability, a defendant lacks mental competency, then the defendant shall not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for a criminal offense.
(b) Mental Illness, Defect, or Disability. Mental illness, defect, or disability means a psychiatric or neurological disorder that is evidenced by behavioral or emotional symptoms, including congenital mental conditions, conditions resulting from injury or disease, or developmental disabilities.
Rule 12.2 Examination of Defendant’s Mental Condition.
(a) Competency to Stand Trial or Be Sentenced. If at any time before or after indictment, the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally incompetent, the court shall order the defendant to submit to a mental examination.
60
(b) Insanity Defense. If the defendant has timely raised a defense of insanity pursuant to Rule 17.4(b), the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, may order the defendant to submit to a mental examination to investigate the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense.
(c) Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases. If at any time the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant’s intellectual disability bars imposition of a sentence of death, the court may order the defendant tested and/or examined to determine whether the defendant is intellectually disabled.
(d) Contents of Motion; Order. The motion shall state the facts upon which the mental examination is sought. The mental examination shall be conducted by a competent psychiatrist and/or psychologist approved by the court.
(e) Medical and Criminal History Records. All available medical and criminal history records shall be provided to the examining mental health expert as and when ordered by the court. A certificate of compliance shall be filed with the court documenting that the records were submitted as ordered.
Sections (a) and (b) make clear that the determination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial is separate and distinct from the determination of the defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense. An examination to investigate competency may be combined with an examination to investigate the
61
defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense, provided that the judicial order makes a clear distinction between the two purposes for evaluation to ensure that the correct legal criteria are applied. While the test for competency is distinct, as a matter of law, from the test for sanity at the time of the offense, the reports prepared may contain information having a substantial bearing on both issues.
Section (c) extends this process to cases in which there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant’s intellectual disability precludes the imposition of a death sentence. See Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013, 1027 (Miss. 2004) (citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002)).
Rule 12.3 Appointment of Experts.
(a) Grounds for Appointment. If the court determines that reasonable grounds for a mental examination exist, it shall appoint a competent psychiatrist and/or psychologist to examine the defendant and, if necessary, to testify regarding the defendant’s mental condition. The court has discretion to appoint more than one (1) examiner.
(b) Examination; Commitment. The court may order that a defendant be examined in an appropriate mental health facility, and it may commit a defendant to the Mississippi State Hospital or other appropriate mental health facility for no longer than reasonably necessary to conduct the examination if:
(1) the defendant cannot be examined on an outpatient basis; (2) examination in an outpatient setting is unavailable; or
(3) commitment for examination is indispensable to a clinically valid diagnosis and report.
The examination and inpatient consultation shall be in the least restrictive appropriate setting.
(c) Reports.
62
(1) Opinion on Competency. A psychiatrist and/or psychologist appointed by the court pursuant to this Rule shall submit a report containing an opinion as to whether the defendant is competent, and the basis therefor. The report may also include additional findings and opinions concerning whether the defendant’s mental condition creates a present danger to the defendant and/or others.
(2) Cause and Treatment of Incompetency. If the opinion referenced in (c)(1) is that the defendant is incompetent under the standards in Rule 12.1, the report shall also state the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion of:
(A) the condition causing the defendant’s incompetency and the nature thereof;
(B) the treatment, if any, required for the defendant to attain competency;
(C) the most appropriate form and place of treatment, in view of the defendant’s therapeutic needs and potential danger to the defendant and/or others, and an explanation of appropriate treatment alternatives;
(D) the likelihood of the defendant’s attaining competency under treatment and the probable duration of the treatment; and
(E) the availability of the various types of acceptable treatment in the local geographic area, specifying the agencies or the settings in which the treatment might be obtained and whether the treatment would be available on an outpatient basis.
(3) Opinion on Mental Condition at Time of the Offense. In addition, if the court so orders, the report shall contain a statement of the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion of the following:
(A) the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the alleged offense;
63
(B) if the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion is that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, the relation, if any, of such to the alleged offense, including:
(i) whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of the defendant’s actions; and
(ii) if so, whether the defendant knew that the actions were wrong.
and
(C) such other matters as the court may deem appropriate.
(4) Opinion on Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases. In addition, if the court so orders in a death penalty case, the report shall contain a statement of the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion as to whether the defendant is intellectually disabled and, if so, to what extent.
(d) Additional Expert Assistance. For good cause shown, the court may appoint additional experts and order the defendant to submit to physical, neurological, psychiatric, or psychological examinations, if necessary for an adequate determination of the defendant’s mental condition.
(e) Costs. Any cost or expense in connection with the court-ordered mental examination(s) shall be paid by the county in which such criminal action originated.
64
65
Section (e) expressly provides for payment of the expenses of such professionals, within limits provided by law. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-13-11.Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985), which holds that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to a psychiatrist provided at state expense, is applicable when the defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that the defendant’s sanity (or insanity) at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial or that the defendant’s mental state is likely to be a significant factor. Where a defense-consultant psychologist and/or psychiatrist is constitutionally required, such an expert may be appointed under Rule 12.3(a).
Rule 12.4 Disclosure of Mental Health Evidence; Reports of Appointed Experts.
(a) Generally. The reports of experts made pursuant to Rule 12.3 shall be submitted to the court clerk within ten (10) working days of the completion of the examination. All original reports shall be filed with the clerk, under seal. Upon receipt, the clerk shall copy and distribute the expert’s report to the trial judge and to defense counsel. Defense counsel may redact any statements of the defendant (or summaries thereof) concerning the offense charged. A copy of the redacted report must be returned to the clerk within five (5) working days of its receipt and made available to the State. Any dispute regarding the extent of redaction shall be resolved by the trial judge.
(b) Mandatory Disclosure. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, the State shall be furnished unredacted copies of the reports of experts made pursuant to Rule 12.3.
66
(defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination was violated when he was not advised of right to remain silent during court-ordered examination and prosecution introduced statements). See also MRE 503 cmt. (“No statement made by an accused in the course of an examination into competency to stand trial is admissible on the issue of guilt”). Thus, the prosecution may not make use of evidence obtained by compulsory mental examination of the defendant unless the defendant offers, either directly or through cross-examination, evidence in support of the affirmative defense of insanity. See Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680, 683-84, 109 S. Ct. 3146, 3149, 106 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1989) (defendant waives the privilege if the defendant introduces expert testimony on mental condition).
Rule 12.5 Hearing and Orders.
(a) Hearing. After submission of the reports, the court, upon its own motion or the motion of any party, shall promptly hold a hearing to determine the defendant’s competency. The parties may introduce other evidence regarding the defendant’s mental condition or, by stipulation (either written or stated on the record in open court), submit the matter on the experts’ reports.
(b) Procedure. The competency hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, at which the defendant shall be represented by counsel. The defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.
(c) Finding of Competence. If the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, then the court shall make the finding a matter of record and order the case to proceed to trial.
(d) Finding of Incompetence. If the court finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, then the court may commit the defendant to the Mississippi State Hospital, other appropriate mental health facility, or other place of treatment, either inpatient or outpatient, based on the report of a psychiatrist or psychologist pursuant to Rule 12.3(c)(2)(C) and (E). The order of commitment shall be filed with the court clerk and shall require that the defendant be examined by staff psychiatrist(s) and/or psychologist(s), and a
67
written report be furnished to the court not less than every four (4) calendar months, stating:
(1) Whether there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become mentally competent to stand trial within the foreseeable future; and
(2) Whether progress toward competency is being made.
(e) Release from Commitment. If, within a reasonable time after entry of a commitment order, there is neither a determination that there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become mentally competent to stand trial nor progress toward competency, the court shall order that civil proceedings as provided in Mississippi Code Section 41-21-61, et. seq., be instituted. Said proceedings shall advance notwithstanding that the defendant has criminal charges pending against him/her. The defendant shall remain in custody until determination of the civil proceedings.
68
stand trial on the charges filed against him”). Sections (d) and (e) largely continue the procedure applicable under former Rule 9.06 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court.
Rule 12.6 Subsequent Hearings.
(a) Grounds. The court shall hold a hearing to assess the defendant’s competency:
(1) on receiving a written report from a treating mental health professional stating that, in his/her opinion, the defendant has become competent to stand trial;
(2) on motion of either party, accompanied by the certificate of a mental health expert stating that, in the expert’s opinion, the defendant is competent to stand trial; or
(3) on the court’s own motion.
The parties may, by stipulation (either written or stated on the record in open court), submit the matter on the experts’ reports.
(b) Finding of Competency. If the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, the regular proceedings shall recommence without delay. The defendant shall be entitled to a rehearing of any proceeding if there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was prejudiced by the defendant’s previous incompetency.
(c) Finding of Continuing Incompetency. If the court finds that the defendant remains incompetent, the court shall proceed in accordance with Rules 12.5(d) or (e).
69
that the continuing commitment of a defendant must be justified by an appropriate showing by the state. Accordingly, the initial findings of the trial court are not relevant at this point, and questions regarding the continued incompetency of the defendant are to be considered by the trial court de novo.
https://courts.ms.gov/research/rules/msrulesofcourt/Rules of Criminal Procedure Post-070118.pdf
See Rule 12 for Mental Evaluations
Rule 12 Mental Examinations - removed comments to save space (see above link for full Rule 12 with comments).
Rule 12.1 Mental Competency; Definition.
(a) Mental Competency. There is a presumption of mental competency. In order to be deemed mentally competent, a defendant must have the ability to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings, to communicate
59
rationally with the defendant’s attorney about the case, to recall relevant facts, and to testify in the defendant’s own defense, if appropriate. The presence of a mental illness, defect, or disability alone is not grounds for finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial. If as a result of mental illness, defect, or disability, a defendant lacks mental competency, then the defendant shall not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for a criminal offense.
(b) Mental Illness, Defect, or Disability. Mental illness, defect, or disability means a psychiatric or neurological disorder that is evidenced by behavioral or emotional symptoms, including congenital mental conditions, conditions resulting from injury or disease, or developmental disabilities.
Rule 12.2 Examination of Defendant’s Mental Condition.
(a) Competency to Stand Trial or Be Sentenced. If at any time before or after indictment, the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally incompetent, the court shall order the defendant to submit to a mental examination.
60
(b) Insanity Defense. If the defendant has timely raised a defense of insanity pursuant to Rule 17.4(b), the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, may order the defendant to submit to a mental examination to investigate the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense.
(c) Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases. If at any time the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant’s intellectual disability bars imposition of a sentence of death, the court may order the defendant tested and/or examined to determine whether the defendant is intellectually disabled.
(d) Contents of Motion; Order. The motion shall state the facts upon which the mental examination is sought. The mental examination shall be conducted by a competent psychiatrist and/or psychologist approved by the court.
(e) Medical and Criminal History Records. All available medical and criminal history records shall be provided to the examining mental health expert as and when ordered by the court. A certificate of compliance shall be filed with the court documenting that the records were submitted as ordered.
Sections (a) and (b) make clear that the determination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial is separate and distinct from the determination of the defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense. An examination to investigate competency may be combined with an examination to investigate the
61
defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense, provided that the judicial order makes a clear distinction between the two purposes for evaluation to ensure that the correct legal criteria are applied. While the test for competency is distinct, as a matter of law, from the test for sanity at the time of the offense, the reports prepared may contain information having a substantial bearing on both issues.
Section (c) extends this process to cases in which there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant’s intellectual disability precludes the imposition of a death sentence. See Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013, 1027 (Miss. 2004) (citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002)).
Rule 12.3 Appointment of Experts.
(a) Grounds for Appointment. If the court determines that reasonable grounds for a mental examination exist, it shall appoint a competent psychiatrist and/or psychologist to examine the defendant and, if necessary, to testify regarding the defendant’s mental condition. The court has discretion to appoint more than one (1) examiner.
(b) Examination; Commitment. The court may order that a defendant be examined in an appropriate mental health facility, and it may commit a defendant to the Mississippi State Hospital or other appropriate mental health facility for no longer than reasonably necessary to conduct the examination if:
(1) the defendant cannot be examined on an outpatient basis; (2) examination in an outpatient setting is unavailable; or
(3) commitment for examination is indispensable to a clinically valid diagnosis and report.
The examination and inpatient consultation shall be in the least restrictive appropriate setting.
(c) Reports.
62
(1) Opinion on Competency. A psychiatrist and/or psychologist appointed by the court pursuant to this Rule shall submit a report containing an opinion as to whether the defendant is competent, and the basis therefor. The report may also include additional findings and opinions concerning whether the defendant’s mental condition creates a present danger to the defendant and/or others.
(2) Cause and Treatment of Incompetency. If the opinion referenced in (c)(1) is that the defendant is incompetent under the standards in Rule 12.1, the report shall also state the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion of:
(A) the condition causing the defendant’s incompetency and the nature thereof;
(B) the treatment, if any, required for the defendant to attain competency;
(C) the most appropriate form and place of treatment, in view of the defendant’s therapeutic needs and potential danger to the defendant and/or others, and an explanation of appropriate treatment alternatives;
(D) the likelihood of the defendant’s attaining competency under treatment and the probable duration of the treatment; and
(E) the availability of the various types of acceptable treatment in the local geographic area, specifying the agencies or the settings in which the treatment might be obtained and whether the treatment would be available on an outpatient basis.
(3) Opinion on Mental Condition at Time of the Offense. In addition, if the court so orders, the report shall contain a statement of the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion of the following:
(A) the mental condition of the defendant at the time of the alleged offense;
63
(B) if the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion is that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, the relation, if any, of such to the alleged offense, including:
(i) whether the defendant knew the nature and quality of the defendant’s actions; and
(ii) if so, whether the defendant knew that the actions were wrong.
and
(C) such other matters as the court may deem appropriate.
(4) Opinion on Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases. In addition, if the court so orders in a death penalty case, the report shall contain a statement of the psychiatrist’s and/or psychologist’s opinion as to whether the defendant is intellectually disabled and, if so, to what extent.
(d) Additional Expert Assistance. For good cause shown, the court may appoint additional experts and order the defendant to submit to physical, neurological, psychiatric, or psychological examinations, if necessary for an adequate determination of the defendant’s mental condition.
(e) Costs. Any cost or expense in connection with the court-ordered mental examination(s) shall be paid by the county in which such criminal action originated.
64
65
Section (e) expressly provides for payment of the expenses of such professionals, within limits provided by law. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-13-11.Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985), which holds that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to a psychiatrist provided at state expense, is applicable when the defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that the defendant’s sanity (or insanity) at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial or that the defendant’s mental state is likely to be a significant factor. Where a defense-consultant psychologist and/or psychiatrist is constitutionally required, such an expert may be appointed under Rule 12.3(a).
Rule 12.4 Disclosure of Mental Health Evidence; Reports of Appointed Experts.
(a) Generally. The reports of experts made pursuant to Rule 12.3 shall be submitted to the court clerk within ten (10) working days of the completion of the examination. All original reports shall be filed with the clerk, under seal. Upon receipt, the clerk shall copy and distribute the expert’s report to the trial judge and to defense counsel. Defense counsel may redact any statements of the defendant (or summaries thereof) concerning the offense charged. A copy of the redacted report must be returned to the clerk within five (5) working days of its receipt and made available to the State. Any dispute regarding the extent of redaction shall be resolved by the trial judge.
(b) Mandatory Disclosure. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense of insanity, the State shall be furnished unredacted copies of the reports of experts made pursuant to Rule 12.3.
66
(defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination was violated when he was not advised of right to remain silent during court-ordered examination and prosecution introduced statements). See also MRE 503 cmt. (“No statement made by an accused in the course of an examination into competency to stand trial is admissible on the issue of guilt”). Thus, the prosecution may not make use of evidence obtained by compulsory mental examination of the defendant unless the defendant offers, either directly or through cross-examination, evidence in support of the affirmative defense of insanity. See Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680, 683-84, 109 S. Ct. 3146, 3149, 106 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1989) (defendant waives the privilege if the defendant introduces expert testimony on mental condition).
Rule 12.5 Hearing and Orders.
(a) Hearing. After submission of the reports, the court, upon its own motion or the motion of any party, shall promptly hold a hearing to determine the defendant’s competency. The parties may introduce other evidence regarding the defendant’s mental condition or, by stipulation (either written or stated on the record in open court), submit the matter on the experts’ reports.
(b) Procedure. The competency hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, at which the defendant shall be represented by counsel. The defendant shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.
(c) Finding of Competence. If the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, then the court shall make the finding a matter of record and order the case to proceed to trial.
(d) Finding of Incompetence. If the court finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, then the court may commit the defendant to the Mississippi State Hospital, other appropriate mental health facility, or other place of treatment, either inpatient or outpatient, based on the report of a psychiatrist or psychologist pursuant to Rule 12.3(c)(2)(C) and (E). The order of commitment shall be filed with the court clerk and shall require that the defendant be examined by staff psychiatrist(s) and/or psychologist(s), and a
67
written report be furnished to the court not less than every four (4) calendar months, stating:
(1) Whether there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become mentally competent to stand trial within the foreseeable future; and
(2) Whether progress toward competency is being made.
(e) Release from Commitment. If, within a reasonable time after entry of a commitment order, there is neither a determination that there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become mentally competent to stand trial nor progress toward competency, the court shall order that civil proceedings as provided in Mississippi Code Section 41-21-61, et. seq., be instituted. Said proceedings shall advance notwithstanding that the defendant has criminal charges pending against him/her. The defendant shall remain in custody until determination of the civil proceedings.
68
stand trial on the charges filed against him”). Sections (d) and (e) largely continue the procedure applicable under former Rule 9.06 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court.
Rule 12.6 Subsequent Hearings.
(a) Grounds. The court shall hold a hearing to assess the defendant’s competency:
(1) on receiving a written report from a treating mental health professional stating that, in his/her opinion, the defendant has become competent to stand trial;
(2) on motion of either party, accompanied by the certificate of a mental health expert stating that, in the expert’s opinion, the defendant is competent to stand trial; or
(3) on the court’s own motion.
The parties may, by stipulation (either written or stated on the record in open court), submit the matter on the experts’ reports.
(b) Finding of Competency. If the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, the regular proceedings shall recommence without delay. The defendant shall be entitled to a rehearing of any proceeding if there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was prejudiced by the defendant’s previous incompetency.
(c) Finding of Continuing Incompetency. If the court finds that the defendant remains incompetent, the court shall proceed in accordance with Rules 12.5(d) or (e).
69
that the continuing commitment of a defendant must be justified by an appropriate showing by the state. Accordingly, the initial findings of the trial court are not relevant at this point, and questions regarding the continued incompetency of the defendant are to be considered by the trial court de novo.
Yes... and out of all that volume of legal mumbo jumbo, it’s the teeny weenie insanity part that concerns me:
“investigate the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense”.
And if your daddy is a doctor, easy to learn what to say & how to say it for eval. Just say’n. Hope I’m wrong!
Are cases ever unsealed? (prior to actual trial) and if so what is the criteria for doing that??
ETA
Can a plea of insanity be entered if the results of the psyche evaluation does not concurr?
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,177
- Reaction score
- 463,609
Kendall DowningVerified account @kendall_downing
That’s defense attorney Steve Farese talking with the Theesfeld family @WMCActionNews5
6:36 AM - 22 Aug 2019 pt
That’s defense attorney Steve Farese talking with the Theesfeld family @WMCActionNews5
6:36 AM - 22 Aug 2019 pt
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,177
- Reaction score
- 463,609
Kendall DowningVerified account @kendall_downing
Family of #AllyKostial arriving along with a number of friends all wearing pink. They are talking to the DA @WMCActionNews5
6:56 AM - 22 Aug 2019 pt
Family of #AllyKostial arriving along with a number of friends all wearing pink. They are talking to the DA @WMCActionNews5
6:56 AM - 22 Aug 2019 pt
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 102
- Guests online
- 1,924
- Total visitors
- 2,026