By Luke Kyaw
WOODLAND, CA – Judge Timothy Fall presided over the resumption of a jury trial for defendant Michael Hernandez in Yolo County Superior Court Dept. 11 this week, and the jurors were tasked with deciding if the already-convicted Hernandez was sane when he committed the crimes.
The defendant had committed sexual assault against the victim—his girlfriend at the time—back in 2015 and the jury had already previously found him guilty on all nine counts that he was charged with, which included kidnapping, intimidation, and false imprisonment.
The 12-person jury reconvened this week for the second phase where they needed to decide whether Hernandez was legally insane when he had committed the crime.
Two questions that they considered were: (1) if the defendant had a mental disease/defect at the time, and (2) whether that mental disease/defect more likely than not blinded him from understanding that his acts were morally and legally wrong.
In this phase, the defendant must show that he was legally insane when he committed the crime and the jury needs to reach a unanimous vote for the verdict.
Representing Hernandez, private attorney Jesse Ortiz called to the stand Dr. Thomson, an experienced psychiatrist with over 50 years of practice, as an expert witness.
Dr. Thomas testified that through reviewing prior mental health records, he had diagnosed Hernandez with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and psychosis, some illnesses of which can cause disorganized thinking and a blur between what is real and what is not. (Dr. Thomas was unable to meet personally with the defendant as the latter had refused to meet with him.)
During cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Martha Wais asked Dr. Thomson about whether goal-oriented behavior is important in deciding the defendant’s ability to distinguish the nature and quality of his conduct.
After Dr. Thomson agreed, DDA Wais brought up how the defendant had identified the victim instead of any other random stranger, had pinned her arms down and threatened her to perform oral sex, and had led the victim to the back of a building away from the public streets.
She then questioned Dr. Thomson if these are indicative of whether the defendant knew what he was doing with a clear goal in mind.
Still, it appeared that Dr. Thomson had a firm belief that the defendant was seriously mentally ill, and suffered from symptoms of all the aforementioned illnesses.
Following this, the defense called on two additional witnesses, Hernandez’s grandmother and younger sister, who both testified that the defendant started to “isolate himself” and felt like a totally different person before the event of the crime.
In their testimonies, they talked about how he was constantly talking to himself, had a blank and glazed-over look on his face, and was very similar to his great-grandmother who was also schizophrenic.
DDA Wais called Dr. Wagner, a clinical psychologist who has testified more than 100 times as an expert witness in psychiatry.
Through reviewing multiple records and assessments of the defendant, Dr. Wagner had also diagnosed Hernandez with mental illness—albeit only one, schizophrenia.
From DDA Wais’ examination, Dr. Wagner agreed that schizophrenics are able to make choices based on their own conscience and can distinguish what is morally and legally wrong.
Dr. Wagner also acknowledged that the defendant threatening the victim with a punch to her throat in case she bit his genitals is indicative of goal-oriented behavior.
In cross-examination, attorney Ortiz asked Dr. Wagner the symptoms of schizophrenia, to which the latter responded that the person suffering may not “be able to connect the dots” at times and suffers from delusion as well as hallucinations.
Dr. Wagner also answered positively when attorney Ortiz questioned him on whether the oral copulation threat by the defendant may be out of self-preservation and instinct that required little thought process.
Attorney Ortiz acknowledged that the defendant did exhibit goal-oriented behavior but ultimately submitted to the jury that defendant Hernandez was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his conduct at the time due to his severe mental illness that prohibited him from thinking clearly, and asked for a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity.
On the other hand, DDA Wais emphasized how the defendant behaving with clear intent and meting out consequences alongside his threats properly constitutes his ability to process the situation.
She asserted that the defendant absolutely knew what he was doing and asked for the jury to rule him as sane during the crime.
After being sent in to deliberate, the jury decided the defendant was “sane,” with sentencing due Aug. 10.
