hit counter script

PINKERTON VS. COUNTY OF KAUAI, et al.
U.S. FEDERAL COURT CASE# 08-00222HG-KSC
KAUAI POLICE & PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT EXPOSED:
DISCLOSING OFFICER MISCONDUCT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

 Disclosing Officer Misconduct Is a Constitutional Duty

 

Important Fact:  The Mental Evaluation was ordered by Prosecutor Guyot, not the Defense.

     It is obvious that the Defense attorneys want to minimize the actions on behalf of Prosecutor Guyot in order to claim he and the County qualify for immunity.

     I have posted the §704-404  Mental Examination results by Dr. Farkas, Dr. Sampsell, and Dr. Gerald McKenna in a single PDF file

     The Defendants Attorneys in this case state that the Mental Evaluation never occurred, as shown below in their Memorandum in Support of Motion To Dismiss Complaint filed by Defendants Attorneys Becky T. Chestnut, David J. Minkin, Matthew S.K. Pyun, Jr on 07-07-08:

     So if the Mental Evaluation never occurred, then why are there 3 Doctors reports detailing the evaluation?  And why defend Guyots actions so vigorously if the Mental Examination never occurred?

     My thoughts as to why Guyot ordered the Mental Exam was done in hopes of committing me to a Psych Ward at the State Mental Hospital.  

     But as the evaluation reports indicate, only 1 of the 2 doctors thinks I have some sort of "defect or disorder" and that particular Doctors opinion is quite entertaining, though I would have to disagree with his diagnosis.  That would be Dr. Gerald McKenna

     If I was mental unfit, then he would have every legal means, however unethical, to have me committed to the State Mental Hospital for "treatment" of the "disorders". 

     In reality this failed tactic would have allowed them the opportunity to further suppress the truth of police abuse and continue their campaign of Malicious Prosecution.

INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION:

Hawaii Revised Statutes §334-60.2

Involuntary hospitalization criteria.

A person may be committed to a psychiatric facility for involuntary hospitalization, if the court finds:
(1) That the person is mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse;
(2) That the person is imminently dangerous to self or others, is gravely disabled or is obviously ill; and
(3) That the person is in need of care or treatment, or both, and there is no suitable alternative available through existing facilities and programs which would be less restrictive than hospitalization. [L 1984, c 188, pt of §3; am L 1985, c 75, §2; am L 1986, c 335, §4]


Hawaii Revised Statutes §704-404

Examination of defendant with respect to physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect. (1) Whenever the defendant has filed a notice of intention to rely on the defense of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding responsibility, or there is reason to doubt the defendant's fitness to proceed, or reason to believe that the physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect of the defendant will or has become an issue in the case, the court may immediately suspend all further proceedings in the prosecution. If a trial jury has been empanelled, it shall be discharged or retained at the discretion of the court. The discharge of the trial jury shall not be a bar to further prosecution.

(2) Upon suspension of further proceedings in the prosecution, the court shall appoint three qualified examiners in felony cases and one qualified examiner in nonfelony cases to examine and report upon the physical and mental condition of the defendant. In felony cases the court shall appoint at least one psychiatrist and at least one licensed psychologist. The third member may be a psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or qualified physician. One of the three shall be a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist designated by the director of health from within the department of health. In nonfelony cases the court may appoint either a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist. All examiners shall be appointed from a list of certified examiners as determined by the department of health. The court, in appropriate circumstances, may appoint an additional examiner or examiners. The examination may be conducted on an out-patient basis or, in the court's discretion, when necessary the court may order the defendant to be committed to a hospital or other suitable facility for the purpose of the examination for a period not exceeding thirty days, or such longer period as the court determines to be necessary for the purpose. The court may direct that one or more qualified physicians or psychologists retained by the defendant be permitted to witness the examination. As used in this section, the term "licensed psychologist" includes psychologists exempted from licensure by section 465-3(a)(3).

(3) An examination performed under this section may employ any method that is accepted by the professions of medicine or psychology for the examination of those alleged to be affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect; provided that each examiner shall form and render diagnoses and opinions upon the physical and mental condition of the defendant independently from the other examiners, and the examiners, upon approval of the court, may secure the services of clinical psychologists and other medical or paramedical specialists to assist in the examination and diagnosis.

(4) The report of the examination shall include the following:

(a) A description of the nature of the examination;

(b) A diagnosis of the physical or mental condition of the defendant;

(c) An opinion as to the defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings against the defendant and to assist in the defendant's own defense;

(d) An opinion as to the extent, if any, to which the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law was impaired at the time of the conduct alleged;

(e) When directed by the court, an opinion as to the capacity of the defendant to have a particular state of mind that is required to establish an element of the offense charged; and

(f) Where more than one examiner is appointed, a statement that the diagnosis and opinion rendered were arrived at independently of any other examiner, unless there is a showing to the court of a clear need for communication between or among the examiners for clarification. A description of the communication shall be included in the report. After all reports are submitted to the court, examiners may confer without restriction.

(5) If the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to participate therein, the report shall so state and shall include, if possible, an opinion as to whether such unwillingness of the defendant was the result of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect.

(6) Three copies of the report of the examination, including any supporting documents, shall be filed with the clerk of the court, who shall cause copies to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant.

(7) Any examiner shall be permitted to make a separate explanation reasonably serving to clarify the examiner's diagnosis or opinion.

(8) The court shall obtain all existing, medical, mental health, social, police, and juvenile records, including those expunged, and other pertinent records in the custody of public agencies, notwithstanding any other statutes, and make such records available for inspection by the examiners.

(9) The compensation of persons making or assisting in the examination, other than those retained by the nonindigent defendant, who are not undertaking the examination upon designation by the director of health as part of their normal duties as employees of the State or a county, shall be paid by the State. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 136, §4(b); am L 1974, c 54, §1; am L 1979, c 3, §1 and c 105, §64; am L 1983, c 172, §1; am L 1987, c 145, §1; am L 1988, c 305, §5; am L 1992, c 88, §1; gen ch 1993; am L 1997, c 306, §1; am L 2006, c 230, §6]

 

Home     Contact Me   

Krstafer Pinkerton
© 2006 | All Rights Reserved