By Aishwarya Rajan
SACRAMENTO – As he stood eager-eyed and perched against his courtroom cell, representing himself in propria persona, defendant Perris J. Lee garnered support from a judge and a deputy district attorney—they appeared to want to make a deal to free Lee.
Wednesday, defendant Lee remained in custody after two years had passed without a preliminary hearing. As to whether he will concede to charges of felony and misdemeanor as is being prosecuted by DDA Jeffery Scott Harry, the jury was still out.
Defendant Lee’s motions to suppress evidence, to request informal discovery, Pitchess (regarding access to law enforcement personnel records), and to dismiss for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence awere addressed with Judge Stephen Acquisto presiding over the Sacramento County Superior Court case.
After being granted parole, defendant Lee, on the cusp of freedom, found himself in trouble again with charges of a felony for battery by a prisoner, and a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure after his first charge in San Diego, CA.
Lee, after firing his attorney, argued in pro per on the basis that his Miranda rights were violated after his lawyer filed for a competency hearing. In turn, the defendant was deemed mentally incompetent to proceed with further hearings, based on his lack of understanding of the trial and case.
Combating the declared incompetency with a reversal, Lee underwent four competency tests, mandating he provide information on the incidents that had resulted in the felony and misdemeanor charges.
On several occasions, Lee accused the court of infringing on his civil rights, specifically his Miranda rights and 6th Amendment rights, stating that “when a person is deprived of freedom, a person must be read rights.”
Although several of the defense’s arguments were baseless, the judge did not summarily write off the arguments with a simple, “Deny.” Judge Acquisto rather elaborated on the reasoning behind such a denial, due to the incorrect conclusions of the defense.
One such example was the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Defendant Lee claimed that he was not provided with due process because of a violation of the Miranda ruling, which should have protected him from, in his perspective, testifying to the psychiatrist as he recounted the incident resulting in his two charges.
Judge Acquisto elaborated on the use of Miranda rights and its use as only “use of evidence against you while you are being criminally prosecuted. The statements that you make to mental health staff…those are not statements that are being used against you. Those are not, those don’t result in any implication of a violation of your constitutional rights.”
In this situation, Miranda rights were thus not applicable, the judge explained, because the jury would not have access to this information, and would be unable to base their decisions off of this evidence. The judge continued to emphasize this to clear up defendant Lee’s misunderstanding of Miranda rights.
Each motion was carried through in this same step-like process, with repetition and clarity conducted by Judge Acquisto.
Defendant Lee consistently expressed the extensive processes that he had attempted to clear his name, alongside his reasoning for firing his attorney.
After Lee neglected his own counter offer and its approval by DDA Harry, the defense continued to plead cases (such as the several motions) that would be stricken down by the settlement, because the court failed to take the time to respond and educate the defendant.
The true support and understanding of Judge Acquisto was displayed as he said, “You’ve got more to life, you’ve got more to do in your life than sit in a jail cell,” in response to Lee criticizing the justice system’s questioning of the reasons behind why he couldn’t be held in custody indefinitely when he had been neglected and held for two years already.
What started out as a justice system failing to adequately represent a defendant, and abdicating duties of relaying the repercussions of aimless hearings, eventually resulted in a settlement agreement, just two years later.
DDA Harry agreed to drop all charges, except for the felony battery, granted that defendant Lee spends five-and-a-half months in custody with credit applied from the 753 days already served, and no restitution. Lee accepted the offer.
Aishwarya Rajan is a first year Political Science Public Service major and Cognitive Science major at the University of California Davis. Her various experiences living in her hometown in Danville, California, have shaped her passions to deliver justice through a career in law.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
