WOODLAND, Calif. – A man accused of violating a criminal protective order appeared in court during his competence hearing, where a forensic psychologist testified to the accused’s incompetence. Despite this, Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey argued that the accused, who struggles with delusions, should be allowed to construct a defensive strategy, even if it is based on his delusional beliefs.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court heard from the complaining witness in the case, the accused’s former girlfriend. She claimed that the accused had been using social media like Facebook to post threats and lies about her and her family, putting them at risk by publicly posting their address. She described the accused’s online activity as “a lot of nonsense.”
Following the complaining witness’s address to the court, Deputy Public Defender Jailene Gutierrez called Dr. Sumandeep Kaur, a forensic psychologist, to testify concerning the accused’s competence to stand trial.
Dr. Kaur explained her extensive experience, having worked with federal and state corrections departments and courts to treat patients in inpatient and outpatient settings. She specializes in competence evaluations, mental health diversions, and cases involving pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. Following Dr. Kaur’s summary of her experience, Judge Daniel M. Wolk admitted her as an expert witness.
DPD Gutierrez began her direct examination of Dr. Kaur by asking about the doctor’s evaluation of the accused, which took place in March of this year. Dr. Kaur explained how she had reviewed various materials pertaining to the accused’s criminal and medical history, including rap sheets, police reports, and prison medical records to help inform her evaluation.
Dr. Kaur testified that the accused had a history of abusing alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine, but that she believes he has been sober for three years.
She also explained some of the accused’s history of arrests, some of which involved his ex-girlfriend.
During Dr. Kaur’s interview with the accused, she found that he would become “very preoccupied and [would ruminate]” when his ex-girlfriend was brought up, requiring the doctor to redirect the conversation. Dr. Kaur explained that, while most of this redirection was successful, the accused sometimes needed additional guidance back to more relevant topics.
When Dr. Kaur asked the accused about his mental health history, she testified that he denied any psychological history.
Dr. Kaur described the accused during their encounter as “mostly guarded” but said he would become “derailed” at the mention of his former girlfriend, when he would demonstrate delusional belief in a conspiracy that he claims she leads against him.
DPD Gutierrez asked Dr. Kaur to elaborate on the delusional beliefs held by the accused. Dr. Kaur explained that the accused seemed to believe that his ex-girlfriend was the head of a drug trafficking ring and that she controlled law enforcement. According to Dr. Kaur, the accused also told her that he is a part of an undercover operation to take down the trafficking ring.
“He would not let go of this belief,” Dr. Kaur emphasized.
After the accused explained his beliefs to Dr. Kaur, he gave her the contact information of a probation officer and a detective. She testified that she had reached out to each of the individuals to ask about the accused’s claims, but only heard back from the detective.
The detective confirmed that the accused had once been a confidential informant to the detective’s office, but was terminated early on after the detective found him to be “unstable.” Dr. Kaur also explained that the detective investigated the accused’s claims regarding the conspiracy against him, but found no evidence of the supposed drug trafficking ring.
Dr. Kaur testified that she also assessed the accused’s understanding of courtroom procedure, which she found to be “generally adequate.” She said that she did not notice any disordered thinking, but she found that his delusional and ruminating way of thought could prevent the construction of a defense, as he kept bringing up his ex-girlfriend and the alleged conspiracy against him.
“[He was] unable to conceptualize anything outside of the conspiracy against him,” Dr. Kaur said. She went on to explain that he rejected alternatives to his defense strategy based on his delusions and was “fixated” on the supposed conspiracy against him.
While Dr. Kaur’s redirection of the conversation with the accused would be initially successful, he would always loop around in a kind of “ruminative preoccupation” with his former girlfriend.
DPD Gutierrez asked if the accused could have been malingering, or exaggerating his symptoms to avoid accountability. Dr. Kaur said that she found that the accused was not attempting to feign his symptoms. She further explained that he had denied any mental impairment and lacked insight into his mental illness.
When asked about a possible diagnosis, Dr. Kaur found that the accused’s symptoms met the criteria for schizophrenia or another condition on the schizophrenic spectrum, which she generally described as an “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum psychotic disorder.”
The principal symptom that made this diagnosis clear to Dr. Kaur was the accused’s preoccupation with his former girlfriend, she testified.
While the accused did factually understand basic courtroom procedures, he was “unable to engage in a rational discussion about defense strategies.” Dr. Kaur went on to explain that this represented a “clinically significant barrier” to the accused’s competency, as he would not be able to cooperate with his attorney and consider rational alternatives to his belief in the conspiracy against him. As such, Dr. Kaur concluded that the accused was incompetent to stand trial.
DDA Harvey began her cross-examination of Dr. Kaur by asking about the length and depth of the evaluation of the accused.
Dr. Kaur explained that her hour-long interview with the accused was “difficult” because he was unable to stay on track against his delusional beliefs. When she asked him to come up with defense strategies, all of his plans involved his ex-girlfriend and her alleged conspiring against him. Dr. Kaur testified that when she had asked him to come up with alternatives not involving his delusional beliefs, he could not think of any.
“He seemed to believe that his ex-girlfriend was a part of a drug trafficking ring […] where law enforcement and individuals reported to her,” Dr. Kaur said.
Throughout DDA Harvey’s cross-examination of Dr. Kaur, the accused appeared to nod at the mention of the supposed drug trafficking ring and kept raising his hand as if he wanted to address the court. DPD Gutierrez and Judge Wolk advised him not to speak.
When DDA Harvey suggested that Dr. Kaur was determining what was a “good” or “bad” defense while speaking to the accused, Dr. Kaur clarified that she intended to examine the accused’s reasoning, not the quality of his legal strategy. She emphasized that the reasoning that was informing the accused’s defense was not sound, as it was built on his delusional beliefs.
DDA Harvey went on to ask why the accused’s mental illness is “unspecified.” Dr. Kaur explained that there were no previous records of his mental illness and that there were complicating factors like his prior use of methamphetamine, which could result in permanent psychosis.
DDA Harvey suggested that, if the accused’s behavior was not the result of mental illness, he would be fit to stand trial. In response, Dr. Kaur emphasized that incompetence is not tied to the presence of mental illness, but rather if the accused would be able to sit and cooperate with counsel to develop a defense strategy.
Similar to her testimony under direct examination, Dr. Kaur explained that her findings were based on the accused’s defense strategy.
“That reasoning was psychotic in nature,” she said. “He’s using these delusional beliefs to inform his defense strategy.”
Dr. Kaur continued, saying that the accused would be competent if his fixation on his past relationship did not pervade his reasoning.
DPD Gutierrez asked Judge Wolk to find the accused incompetent, focusing on his inability to engage in a rational conversation.
However, DDA Harvey disagreed with Dr. Kaur’s findings, arguing that the accused had only met one requirement to be considered incompetent and that, despite his clinically delusional thinking, his chosen strategy of blaming the victim was an appropriate plan, used “in this courtroom [and] in this courthouse almost every day.”
DDA Harvey also disputed the reliability of Dr. Kaur’s evaluation, calling it “substandard” for its short duration and for the accused only meeting one prong of the incompetence test.
DPD Gutierrez pushed back on DDA Harvey’s argument, maintaining that the accused’s fixation on his ex-girlfriend and her alleged conspiracy against him significantly impairs his reasoning, especially considering his claims have no relevance to the facts of the current case.
Following each of the attorneys’ arguments, Judge Wolk concluded that the accused was incompetent to stand trial, saying that it was clear that he has some unspecified schizophrenic condition. Judge Wolk emphasized the accused’s contact with federal departments like the FBI, NSA, and CIA, his belief in a “secret lab,” and his lack of insight into his mental illness. The judge also reminded the court that they must consider a mental health diversion.
As the hearing wrapped up, DPD Gutierrez suggested that she would be filing a motion to dismiss.
Judge Wolk set the matter for review on Aug. 12 at 9 a.m. in Department 8.
