The People vs. Whatshisname

As mentioned before, in general reality if far less interesting when compared with fictionalized accounts. Case in point, the court case that I was assigned to. One of my favorite shows is Law & Order. I knew this wasn't going to be up to par with that. Reality isn't all that exciting usually and this was a court case to determine the mental competency of the defendant, something that just usually doesn't make the TV shows.

I was Alternate #2 (out of 2) which is to say that I played the part of nipples on a boar pig... useless. I was there and did my duty though (cue patriotic music and flag waving behind me). Our duty was to determine if the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. By the court's definition competency meant that the defendant understood the nature of the proceedings, his part in it and is able to assist his attorney in his defense. In this type of case, you don't even need beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the burden of the defense to show with a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant isn't competent

In TV Land you would have had someone who was Rain Man, some deranged look in his eyes, talking to his invisible friend, Bunny or the like. In reality though, we get a defendant who is sluggish and not very responsive and who enunciates like Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade. The defendant had been diagnosed as being bipolar and schizophrenic, which was to be the basis of the issue.The defendant, to be known forthwith as Ben, didn't display any unusual characteristics except occasionaly smiling or laughing to himself. Fortunately that isn't grounds enough or I would be in question of being competent (just in terms of standing trial, the rest is up for debate).

The defenses entire case was that Ben had been abused, bounced around in foster care, a drug baby and that he wasn't quite sure what the case was all about. The defense did not present any exhibits that even touched on the facts she said she was going to show. Her sole shot was to have Ben testify and show that he was slow and didn't quite understand what everything was about. Well, for one most of us could get up on stage and talk like Ralph Wiggum or the like and act like you aren't mentally sound. This guy, however, although hard to understand and frequently "distracted" in answering questions was able to use words that showed me he for one was intelligent enough to understand basic questions. There was no bombshell moment in his testimony, nothing asked by the defense to really call into question his competency. She didn't offer any expert testimony that supported their asserions either. It was like she knew this guy was bullshit, said "I'll take French Army, 1940 for 500, Alex" and called it a day.

To be fair, the prosecution wasn't exactly Clarence Darrow. She was ok, not the best speaker in the world but didnt totally gaff it. She had an expert witness though. The expert witness was a Doctor often hired to examine defendants due to his specialty in forensic psychiatry. If there are any budding attorneys out there, feel free to ask medical experts to paraphrase their credentials, especially as it pertains to the case. This guy started with his credentials at about 1972 and then went on... and on. He even included that he studies some internal medicine and OB/GYN (If you would, Dr. Sharma tell the court what your findings were after administering the PAP smear to the defendant) . So, after hearing the good doctors qualifications, he proceded to explain to us that he felt the patient was competent. A separate doctor had ID'd Ben as a "malingerer" meaning he either used symptoms of mental disorders to get what he wanted or if he had symptoms he would try to use them to get a lot of mileage off of them. The defense did get the doctor to admit that he probably wouldn't want Ben as a juror in a case he was involved with, but that was it. No mental retardation and any mental illness present did not preclude him from understanding.

The closing arguments were worthy of debates in my Intro to Communications class at Cal State Fullerton.. all the passion of a General Ed course.. yessss! The 12 jurors went in to deliberate and the other alternate and I cooled our heels in the hall. It took about 20 minutes for them to return the verdict of Competent. The judge was quite kind in thanking us for our service and apologetic for some of the delays that occured and let us go. I am not exaggerating in that we spent more time at lunch than we did at trial, and instructions given to us in the court were about as lenghty as the testimony given. So, for at least another year, or until the proper authorities catch up with me my court time is over.