By Catherine McKnight
On Wednesday morning the court heard closing arguments in People v. Humphrey. The state is seeking a re-extension on Casey Humphrey’s commitment at Napa State Hospital. The key question surrounding this case: “Is he a harm to others?” It is not about guilt or innocence, which Judge Paul Richardson made clear to the jury.
In his opening, DDA Gorman said that the “bottom line” is that Casey Humphrey “is apparently schizophrenic with little or no insight into his mental illness.” Because of this, he said, this makes him a substantial threat to others.
Mr. Gorman continued by saying that Casey cannot take his medication normally – it is usually crushed into his food because of his past history of diverting medication. He noted that Casey is currently only at the low range of the therapeutic range with Clozapine and that in about six months he should be ready for release.
Mr. Gorman repeated the instructions to the jury and the elements necessary to extend his commitment. He argued that the only thing controlling Casey’s outbursts is the Clozapine and that he is not taking it the way it was meant to be taken – orally in pill form. He also pointed out that this has been in a strictly supervised setting. The difference between now and the future is the future would be in an unsupervised setting.
The People brought up what Dr. Glasser’s report was a few months ago, when it was reported that Casey was a substantial threat. He then used an analogy he talked with his brother about, who is a dentist. He said his brother thought about how bizarre it is that Casey’s current treating psychiatrist has an opinion that Casey should stay in Napa for six more months, yet it is being left up to twelve citizens to decide. If his brother had a patient who he knew needed serious dental work done, he continued, it would be up to him decide because he is the dentist.
With that said, Mr. Gorman said that at some point, it has to be decided in a case like this that the expert, Dr. Glasser, knows best. He said it is no question that Casey has a loving family or place to get upon release, but now is simply not the time.
DDA Gorman ended his closing by saying that Dr. Glasser testified that Casey had no understanding of his mental illness and how his substance abuse has an effect on it. He also said that Casey ended up in Napa because of his own actions and, because of his lack of insight, he poses a substantial threat/danger to others. What Casey’s mom and brother want, he continued, should not guide the decision.
In Deputy Public Defender Bret Bandley’s closing argument, he started by telling the jury that they are not here to decide what occurred several years ago. He asked them to decide on Casey “as he sits here today, this moment in time.” He continued to say that Dr. Glasser’s opinion dates back to March and that, from his testimony, his expert opinion has changed since then.
Mr. Bandley went on to discuss how this is a significant concern because his client could be deprived of his liberty. He told the jury how all elements must be met beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained how important it is to understand key words, especially “substantial.” This is not “maybe” or “possible” – it has to be absolutely substantial, as Casey sits here today.
Dr. Glasser also testified that there have been no acts of physical violence by Casey, and he has not been on Clozapine the entire time. The entire time Casey has been admitted, there has been no physical violence. He has been compliant, he continued.
Mr. Bandley said that the only reason his pills are being crushed and added to food or water is because they are afraid there will be misuse because of his past history. It is not that he is not willing to take Clozapine; it is something Casey “wanted to do.” He also said that there is a plan for Casey upon release.
Mr. Bandley told the jury that the major period of drug use associated with his substance abuse problem all occurred before his time in Napa, in his late teen years – over ten years ago.
Dr. Glasser testified that he believes Casey is voluntarily taking his medication. His family, he continued, understands what needs to be done if Casey is to be released in November. It will be in a rural setting, by a lake, and that “family is family.” He will be able to learn social skills by his family and that being in a mental hospital for over ten years has undoubtedly affected his difficulty to recognize normal social cues.
“So, does he pose a substantial threat as he sits here today? No. There has been no incidence of physical behavior.”
He explained to the jury what preponderance of evidence means, and that it is not the highest standard in the criminal judicial system. Mr. Bandley ended by saying that Casey is now 28, the incident happened 11 years ago, and he has been in a hospital all of his adult life. His father was physically and emotionally abusive, and Casey wants to move on with his life and “wants to have a chance.”
In DDA Gorman’s rebuttal, he said that, growing up, “Casey’s life sucked,” which more often than not happens to children who are put into an abusive environment. He continued to say that it is okay to have compassion, but this case and this petition is not about what Casey wants. “He gave that right up 11 years ago.”
He ended by telling the jury that he will eventually be released and this is not a case without hope. Casey’s time will come, just not right now.
UPDATE: On Thursday morning, the jury could not come to a unanimous decision. With a hung jury in this special proceeding situation, the DA can retry, but DDA Gorman chose not to. Casey Humphrey will be released to his family as scheduled, in November of this year.
[quote]He then used an analogy he talked with his brother about, who is a Dentist. He said his brother thought about how bizarre it is that Casey’s current treating psychiatrist has an opinion that Casey should stay in Napa for six more months, yet it is being left up to twelve citizens to decide. If his brother had a patient whom he knew needed serious dental work done, he continued, it would be up to him decide because he is the dentist.[/quote]
The difference between the treatment recommendations of a dentist and those of a psychiatrist (at least in this case) is that the psychiatrist is recommending that his patient be deprived of his freedom and involuntarily hospitalized. For any decision involving the loss of liberty, adjudication by a judge or jury is completely appropriate, indeed necessary. To my knowledge, dentists do not perform involuntary procedures.
On the other hand, dentists don’t get called upon to predict whether a mentally ill person might kill or injure someone if released from custody. This is quite a burden for a psychiatrist, let alone a jury of 12 that cannot come to agreement.
“While he had his father on the ground, he stabbed him three times. Ultimately, his father was treated for the stab wounds, but continued to suffer afterwards with clotting, a stroke and some residual paralysis.”
Did the victim testify? For or against release?
“Did the victim testify? For or against release?”
I didn’t see this hearing, but the last hearing was strictly a competency hearing and a determination as to whether the individual was competent at this point to be released, as such the only relevant information was from the psychiatrists and not anyone impacted by the crime.
A question came to mind for me which I doubt anyone can answer but I just thought I would toss the concept out there. I wonder if there are firearms on the property where Mr. Humphrey will be residing ?
Would it even be considered a legitimate question to ask of the family in consideration of release ?
[quote]Did the victim testify? For or against release?[/quote]
His father did not testify, as David said. This trial was strictly about whether or not Casey still posed a substantial threat today and if he has difficulty controlling his behavior. The only family that we know of who want to have Casey released in November are his two brothers and mother, whom he will be staying with upon release.
[quote]I wonder if there are firearms on the property where Mr. Humphrey will be residing ?
Would it even be considered a legitimate question to ask of the family in consideration of release ?[/quote]
I am not sure what the protocol is when a patient is released, besides Casey developing a wellness plan. I’m sure something like that will be left up to the family’s best judgment. They assured the court they understood what needed to be done upon release, so I guess the rest is left up to them.
Thanks, Catherine McKnight, for covering this interesting and troubling story.
It sounds as though family members did, in fact, participate in this trial. Otherwise, how do we know so much about their evaluations, feelings, offers and assurances?
I’m still interested the victim’s condition and position on release of his own son. Was the father ever even mentioned during the proceedings? How did the jury vote?
Finally, how did Mr. Casey end up at the state hospital? Is he there as the result of an insanity defense or by some other route?
Current standards on patients’ rights sometimes collide with society’s or a family’s desires to protect an individual from harm. In this case, at least some of the family feels the other way and is confident they can help.
[quote]I’m sure something like that will be left up to the family’s best judgment. They assured the court they understood what needed to be done upon release, so I guess the rest is left up to them.[/quote]
Well, if correct, that is certainly a sobering thought given Nancy Lanza’s judgement in maintaining guns at her home with the known outcome of her own death and that of all the victims at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Perhaps not leaving such a decision up to the family might be a better choice where mental illness of a family member is involved.
JustSaying –
Casey’s brother and mother both took the stand but unfortunately we were not able to cover that afternoon. So the information I have for that testimony is from what was said in closing arguments by counsel, whom both reiterated the family’s desires in regards to Casey.
The father was only mentioned when talking about Casey’s background and how he ended up at Napa. I am interested as well, but the jury was instructed to not judge the incident 11 years ago or make any decision based off of that incident.
Another intern was able to see the verdict, and he reported to me that 7 out of 12 found the petition to be “not true”. So the majority of jurors did not believe the DA proved his case, that Casey is a substantial threat.
Yes, Casey ended up at Napa as a result of not guilty by reason of insanity plea.
I would have to agree with the majority of jurors. I felt that the DA’s case rested on the incident with his father and a substance abuse problem that was before he was 18. It is a difficult case because although hearing about how somebody stabbed his own father is horrific and how he wound up in a mental institution as a result, the question remains of how long is long enough to re-enter society. The altercation with his father itself is a little fuzzy, in his closing DDA Bandley noted that alcohol was involved and they had already been fighting.
With the Clozapine, Casey’s future seems hopeful. Gorman repeatedly said his case is not without hope. If his family keeps their word, as does Casey, the same results will come from taking the pill whether he is in Napa or home with family. It’s a judgment call that had to be made, going almost solely off of his psychiatrists testimony.
medwoman –
You make a good point, although I am not sure of protocol. I am not sure if word of mouth that Casey will be going into a good home is sufficient in letting him leave. I also do not know when or how his release date was set initially. I also have to wonder why Clozapine was not introduced earlier. One of the downfalls of covering certain cases, many questions remain and not enough answers to go around.
catmcknight
All good questions. And thank you for your diligence in reporting and responding to questions.
[quote]I also do not know when or how his release date was set initially. I also have to wonder why Clozapine was not introduced earlier.[/quote]
The release date was set at the time of the original trial at which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. It is related to the maximum amount of time he would have served in prison if he had been convicted of the crime.
Clozapine is generally considered to be a medication of last resort as it has some very significant side effects. He would have had unsuccessful trials of several other medications before eventually being started on it.
If the hospital feels that Casey remains dangerous as a result of his mental disorder, they can pursue a civil commitment prior to the maximum release date. Otherwise, he will be released without conditions once that date arrives.
You did a very nice job of covering this interesting case.
[quote]Perhaps not leaving such a decision up to the family might be a better choice where mental illness of a family member is involved.[/quote] Who should be deciding that? Since you mention Lanza I’m assuming you don’t only mean people who’ve been convicted of crimes, but proactively removing guns from any home with a person with mental illness? Or alternately, not allowing people with mental illnesses to live in homes with guns?
And what constitutes “mental illness?” Anxiety? Depression? OCD? Any diagnosis in DSM?