Part I of III
This is a very tragic case that has been in the news containing multiple issues and these issues are diverse in that they touch on the humanistic, moral, and legal parts of society. I would like to make some comments pertaining to the various issues due to the fact that it is not the first time this has occurred. I also intend to provide some insight from a case I myself have investigated as a homicide detective which is similar in nature to the case at hand.
This is a very tragic case and it has a large number of very important issues and learning points that are all combined in one case. We have the issue of the defendant being charged with a certain type of crime; additionally, we have competency issues relating to the defendant being able to assist in her defense with her defense attorney, and we have the issue of the mother of the defendant being looked at by non-attorneys and the victim’s mother wanting her to be charged for some connection to this tragic act. I have investigated cases where there was a hue and cry by the community for charges to be brought against a mother and in another case a friend of the victim and defendants and others who were present during the occurrence which in both cases resulted in the death of an infant and in the second case a young man.
Due to the several issues involved in this case I intend to address this case in parts. I will address the case and the issues in three parts beginning with the competency issue and the competency hearing. The reason I am not addressing the issues regarding the charges first is due to the fact that I have myself in cases changed the charging document a week before trial and this is due to the fact that until you pick and swear in a jury you can still amend the charges as long as speedy has not been demanded and you have not come to the end of the speedy time allotment.
The defendant must be able to understand the charges being brought against them and they must be mentally able to assist their attorney in their representation. This is something that is so important because no matter what the charges are if the defendant is not competent to assist understanding the charges, the process and able to assist their attorney then the case cannot move forward no matter what the charges may or may not be which are being brought by the government.
There was a young toddler who was killed, she is the girl who is in the picture above, and there is also another young girl, who is from Fairfield Maine, whom the Bangor Daily News is not naming because she is a juvenile, and who is currently charged with reckless or criminally negligent manslaughter in the death of the victim, Brooklyn Foss-Greenaway.
The young unidentified girl who has been charge went to court and entered a “no answer” plea, via her attorney, in juvenile court. A no answer plea, in the State of Maine, serves neither as an admission, nor is it a denial, of the charges being brought against the defendant. This type of a plea comes into play when there are questions about the availability of skills associated with the competence, or lack of competence, of the defendant, or person being charges with a crime. In fact, the attorney for the girl in this case took the correct action by making a request to the court for a competency hearing for his client, and the judge in this case also took the correct action by granting the request for the competency hearing.
The competency hearing was ordered to determine if the defendant in this particular case is able to understand what lawyers do, what judges do, what court proceedings are for and what is actually happening around her in the case at hand. No one in the court room working group was surprised by the plea because these individuals knew that this is exactly what was needed to be done to serve justice. They knew this because of the fact that there is an eleven year old girl, who was ten years old at the time the death occurred and without and if she is without the proper understanding and only has the metal capacity of the child then there is no way to determine if she can assist in her defense, understands what it going on around her, and also if she had the mental capacity to understand what she did at the time. All of this goes to critical rights provided under the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and state laws.
The hearing to
determine if this 11-year-old girl charged with manslaughter in the death of an
infant, which occurred on July 8, 2012, is competent to stand trial was
completed in Skowhegan District Court on Friday morning March 15, 2013. These
hearings are critical to the due process aspect of the criminal justice system
in the United States. These hearings usually do not produce an instant decision
by the court due to the facts and issues needing to be considered by the court
during this important process. This hearing was no different than the majority
of these hearings which occur throughout the United States in all types of
court room. On this day there was no ruling by the court.
Judges want to
make a very informed and deliberate decision when it comes to competency
hearing due to the fact that this hearing is being held to determine, in the
judge’s opinion, whether or not, in this case, if she understands what lawyers
do, what judges do, what court proceedings are and this goes directly to the
defendant’s sixth amendment rights under the bill of rights of the United
States Constitution. The court can take anywhere from a week to a month to make
a ruling on these types of issues; however, the normal turnaround time for the
issuing of a decision by the court is usually within a week of the hearing
unless there are some complicated issues that surfaced during the hearing. That
did not appear to occur in this case.
On Thursday, March
29, 2913, the court published its ruling that the unidentified 11 Year Old
Defendant Not Competent to Stand Trial for Manslaughter. In the court’s ruling,
the judge did what many other judges across the United States do in these cases
and he allowed for the possibility of the defendant becoming competent in the
future at which time the court would continue to have jurisdiction and could
change its ruling based upon a change in the circumstances of the defendant.
In fact, the judge
was very clear in his ruling that he concluded from the information presented
during the competency hearing that at this time, the State has not met its
burden of demonstrating that the defendant is competent to proceed under the
standard established by the Maine Juvenile Code, which is the standard of which
competency must be measured and decided by the court. The court was clear in
stating that it was at this point in time that he was making this ruling and
that the court feels that there subsists a substantial probability that the
juvenile will be competent in the foreseeable future.
With this ruling,
the court took the next logical and legal step which was to issue an order
suspending the proceedings on the juvenile petition and the court then referred
the juvenile to the Commissioner of Health and Human Services for evaluation
and treatment of the mental health and behavioral needs identified in the State
Forensic Service examiner’s report which is again usual for judges conducting
and ruling on these matters to do. The judge is going to make their decision as
to competency based upon an expert’s examination of the defendant and not just
their non-expert perception. It should be noted that levels of competency can
increase with age, time, and experiences and that is why the judge has ordered
that the State Forensic Service will examine the defendant and then write and
send a report to the judge within 60 days for future proceedings.
Under the Police
Powers Act, all states have the right to create their own laws and also their
own juvenile laws as long as they do not violate the rights bestowed upon
juveniles by the United State Supreme Court. In the instant state the Juvenile
Code calls for competency hearings done at 60, 180 and 365 days from the judge’s
ruling. With this guidance in mind, if by the end of March 2014, the defendant
is still not deemed to be competent to stand trial, the ability for the state
to prosecute her will be much more difficult. The reason why it becomes more
difficult for the state to prosecute is that after the one year mark is due to
the fact that in this particular state the standard becomes a clear and
convincing standard, which is a step above, the existing standard. The three
levels of proof in cases are preponderance of the evidence, (the lowest and
easiest), clear and convincing, (which is a little more difficult), and beyond
a reasonable doubt (which is the most difficult). Again, this type of a
competency hearing has to do with the defendant being able to understanding how
the court process works, not if she knows right from wrong.
Part II will address the issue of the charges being brought against the defendant by the State of Maine in this case.
