4.Competency and Trial-Start Matters
51 linesTHE COURT: Regarding the competency issue that was raised, under State versus Blair, competency has not been challenged or even requested by the Defense but the Court did issue orders having Mr. Jones evaluated by Dr. Frierson. An evaluation was conducted. I am going to mark this as a Court's exhibit, a copy of the report of Dr. Frierson, the form and all of the lengthy report. The Court has reviewed it three times as recently as last night. And the Defense has not read the competency?
MR. YOUNG: No sir, we objected to the competency evaluation at the time and may take that objection.
THE COURT: And certainly that is, the Court's performance on evaluation and had a evaluation done to assist with competency. Dr. Frierson will testify. His report found Mr. Jones to be competent. Since the last Monday, when did we start, what was the day?
COURT CLERK: The 29th.
THE COURT: The 29th, April 29th, I thought it was the week before.
COURT CLERK: We started on April 29th.
THE COURT: We had another hearing before that, the week before, did we not?
COURT CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: Since the 29th, at a minimum, I have been present in the courtroom. Mr. Jones has been present in the courtroom twelve court days, I may be a day off, maybe eleven and the Court has observed him in and out of the courtroom, coming to and from, interacting with his attorneys, interacting with the Court, also asking him a couple of questions during jury qualifications, he interacted appropriately, he has been attentive. He has spoken with the attorneys, very much interacted with them in a quiet and very appropriate manner and courtroom protocol. The Court was aware that the transportation team from the Sheriffs Department has interacted with him and the Court has been apprized of no issues regarding his competency, his behavior, other than the more stimulus in the courtroom has been different than he has been in the past. And so wanted to make certain that that was addressed because we have been in the courtroom, eight, ten hours a day since then. But the Court's observation, considering everything I have observed in my interactions with Mr. Jones as well as considering Dr. Frierson's report, he has appeared every bit competent to me and I believe the lawyers would have a duty to raise that if they had concern, they have not. So per Blair, the Court finds him competent to proceed with this trial this afternoon. Did I leave anything out, anybody else wants on the record or not. Mr. Young?
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, it just occurred to me, I know I sent it to the Court and the State, I didn't know if Your Honor had any intention of offering any introductory remarks prior to--
THE COURT: I do, I have an intention of doing that. And I read yours, your suggestive one. I don't think I am going to go as far as saying what y'all are going to do and tell them what they are going to do. Y'all's respective roles, they go first, you go second, preponderance, beyond a reasonable doubt, address those two things. The process of the whole trial will go and the court breaks, that such of a thing. I am not going to the extent of your suggestion in that memo. What I have outlined is what I am going to do. So is that sufficient?
MR. YOUNG: Any chance can we get sort of a review of or you don't have it written down.
THE COURT: You just got it.
MR. YOUNG: Okay.
MS. MAYES: Your standard instructions?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
MR. YOUNG: Do you have a copy of your standard?
THE COURT: I stand up and talk. You get to hear, I mean, I just gave you an outline and that is how I am going to go with it, just like I did.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: It is going to be real similar, I just hit the high points, I am going to explain those things, my role, their role, who goes first, who has got the burden, you go second, y'all have got a burden in this case, four verdicts, take notes, they can keep their notes, that kind of thing.
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir. Your Honor as a proposed instruction regarding not guilty by reason of insanity. Is that going to be charged through the Court's charge, initial charge to the jury?
THE COURT: Would you like me to or not. Both sides, same question, what I read yesterday, two sentences. Would you like me to instruct that or not.
MR. HUBBARD: At this point I think it is premature.
THE COURT: I was kind of leaning--
MR. HUBBARD: I think it would confuse them if you did it at this point.
THE COURT: I was kind of leaning on not doing that but using it when it came up. I want the jury to know that that is my instruction in the beginning so they won't feel like they are not getting the question asked. So when we get to that point I will tell the jury, this is the instruction, this is the rule handed down by the Supreme Court and that issue is not before you and therefore the lawyers aren't allowed to ask those questions even though--
MR. YOUNG: -- they really want to.
THE COURT: Sure. I won't say that, the lawyers are not allowed to ask those questions because of the Supreme Court rules.
MR. YOUNG: Even though we would really like you to know what happens, they are not allowed that. We renew our motion to have those instructions pursuant to the statute.
THE COURT: Motion renewed, motion consistently ruled, denied. Is there any objection to my copy of Dr. Frierson's report being marked as a Court's exhibit.
MR. HUBBARD: None from the State. In fact, I think that is appropriate.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, yes, we maintain our objection to that.
THE COURT: That will be Court's exhibit 80, I believe. (Whereupon, Court's Exhibit 80 was marked for identification only.)
THE COURT: Now we are done until 1:00.
MR. HUBBARD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: See y'all at 1:00.
(Whereupon, a lunch break was taken.)
THE COURT: I want everybody in the courtroom to kind of know the ground rules for management of the courtroom. Folks, so y'all know, everybody has not been part of the preliminary jury selection process before right now. Because of the necessity to keep the jury secure, they have a security detail, additionally it is very distracting to the jury, to the lawyers, to me and the court people getting up and moving around. So the bailiffs and security has been instructed to limit movement in the courtroom while the jury is in the courtroom. So if you, witness is on stand, lawyers are doing some work and the jury is in the courtroom I am not going to allow going to and from the courtroom while that is going on. If we take break, and you can come and go as much as you want while we are down. I want everybody to know that and the lawyers know that because we have been managing that pretty well. So I want to let y'all know that before I bring the jury in because I am going to tell them I have restricted movement when they come in. So you need to get up, and you can't make it, I am going to say an hour, you better leave now. All right. Are y'all ready to go. Anything to put on the record? Solicitor?
MR. HUBBARD: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Did y'all, I had a discussion with myself about limiting y'all on openings but I decided to let y'all be the judge of your own opening length. It is up to y'all, I don't care. Do we need to take up anything before I get the jury in?
MR. YOUNG: No, sir.
MR. HUBBARD: No, sir.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in, please. (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 1:00 p.m.)
MR. HUBBARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: Yes. One of the jurors sent a note out, do we need to address that before they come in?
MR. YOUNG: I wouldn't do it now because if you want to address it today--
THE COURT: How about do it after we finish these openings.
MR. HUBBARD: That will be fine.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. YOUNG: And I think, my understanding of the issue, is her boss spouse, works at Rob's office. That person has been out and is out on maternity leave through the rest of case.
THE COURT: I don't see it as an issue. (Whereupon, a bench conference was held while the jury came into the courtroom.)