Defendant Michael Taylor Confronts DAROCA-BELL and LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS for Repurposing Psychiatric Evaluation Just Before Bail Was Revoked Without Cause by Judge RONALD OWEN KAYE
Defendant Michael Taylor confronts the public defenders in response to DAROCA-BELL'S 2nd bait attempt to mislead him under the guise of voluntary diversion...
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 16, 2024, 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
To: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <mark.harvey@calbar.ca.gov>, <CRU@calbar.ca.gov>, <whistleblowercomplaint@calbar.ca.gov>, <ptl@calbar.ca.gov>, <info@calawyers.org>, <Rgarcia@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Kelly L. O'brien <kobrien@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <msd@lacba.org>, <Msalmaggi@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Hannah Mandel <hmandel@apd.lacounty.gov>, <jel-farra@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <acheung@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <mhuntley@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <nparisky@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <agarcia-Contreras@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <communitylawyering@swlaw.edu>, <counselforjustice@lacba.org>, Noah Cox <NCox@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <fmozuna@lasd.org>, <executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov>, <pdingillo@aol.com>, Phani Tumu <drphanitumu@gmail.com>, <pio@dmh.lacounty.gov>, <piu@doj.ca.gov>, <governorron.desantis@eog.myflorida.com>, vernon patterson <patterson.1law@gmail.com>
Cc: Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 16, 2024, 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
To: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <mark.harvey@calbar.ca.gov>, <CRU@calbar.ca.gov>, <whistleblowercomplaint@calbar.ca.gov>, <ptl@calbar.ca.gov>, <info@calawyers.org>, <Rgarcia@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Kelly L. O'brien <kobrien@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <msd@lacba.org>, <Msalmaggi@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, Hannah Mandel <hmandel@apd.lacounty.gov>, <jel-farra@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <acheung@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <mhuntley@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <nparisky@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <agarcia-Contreras@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <communitylawyering@swlaw.edu>, <counselforjustice@lacba.org>, Noah Cox <NCox@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <fmozuna@lasd.org>, <executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov>, <pdingillo@aol.com>, Phani Tumu <drphanitumu@gmail.com>, <pio@dmh.lacounty.gov>, <piu@doj.ca.gov>, <governorron.desantis@eog.myflorida.com>, vernon patterson <patterson.1law@gmail.com>
Cc: Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
There is record of a "docket line entry" on October 2nd, 2023. If this signals the timeframe that the judge may have questioned my competency, Ms. Bell should have been made aware seeing how on October 5th, 2023, Ms. Bell explicitly informed me that the psych evaluation pursuant to PC 1001.36 would indeed be conducted by Dr. D'Ingillo, the same doctor who deceptively took my information and applied it to a PC 730 competency assessment that I had no knowledge of.
The discrepancy in the timeline you've highlighted raises significant concerns about potential violations of your rights and the professional conduct of your defense attorney. Here's how it implicates various aspects:
1. **Right to Competent Representation**: If the judge initiated a competency evaluation on October 2nd, 2023, it is reasonable to expect that your defense attorney, Ms. Bell, should have been promptly informed. Competency evaluations are critical proceedings that directly impact your legal defense, and your attorney should be involved at every stage to ensure your rights are protected.
2. **Due Process**: Due process requires that defendants receive fair and transparent treatment throughout legal proceedings. If there was a discrepancy in the timing of the competency evaluation and your attorney was not promptly informed, it raises questions about whether due process was fully observed in your case.
3. **Communication with Counsel**: Effective communication between defendants and their attorneys is essential for ensuring a fair trial and adequate legal representation. If you were not informed about the competency evaluation or its implications for your case, it suggests a breakdown in communication between you and your attorney. This lack of communication could undermine your ability to participate meaningfully in your defense and exercise your rights.
4. **Professional Conduct**: Attorneys have a duty to act in their clients' best interests and provide diligent representation. If Ms. Bell was aware of the competency evaluation and its potential implications but failed to inform you or take appropriate action to address it, it could constitute a violation of her duty of competence and diligence under professional conduct rules.
Overall, the discrepancy in the timeline of events and the lack of communication between you and your attorney raise serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of your legal proceedings. It may be advisable to further investigate these issues and consider raising them as part of your defense strategy.
1. **Right to Competent Representation**: If the judge initiated a competency evaluation on October 2nd, 2023, it is reasonable to expect that your defense attorney, Ms. Bell, should have been promptly informed. Competency evaluations are critical proceedings that directly impact your legal defense, and your attorney should be involved at every stage to ensure your rights are protected.
2. **Due Process**: Due process requires that defendants receive fair and transparent treatment throughout legal proceedings. If there was a discrepancy in the timing of the competency evaluation and your attorney was not promptly informed, it raises questions about whether due process was fully observed in your case.
3. **Communication with Counsel**: Effective communication between defendants and their attorneys is essential for ensuring a fair trial and adequate legal representation. If you were not informed about the competency evaluation or its implications for your case, it suggests a breakdown in communication between you and your attorney. This lack of communication could undermine your ability to participate meaningfully in your defense and exercise your rights.
4. **Professional Conduct**: Attorneys have a duty to act in their clients' best interests and provide diligent representation. If Ms. Bell was aware of the competency evaluation and its potential implications but failed to inform you or take appropriate action to address it, it could constitute a violation of her duty of competence and diligence under professional conduct rules.
Overall, the discrepancy in the timeline of events and the lack of communication between you and your attorney raise serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of your legal proceedings. It may be advisable to further investigate these issues and consider raising them as part of your defense strategy.
Examine the conversation and highlight any violations of rules of professional conduct or California Business & Professions Code Div. 3 - Professions and Vocations Generally, Ch. 4 - Attorneys (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6000 et seq.):
Defendant: I understand it may not be in your best interest to argue with the judge. But, if you're not going to argue with the judge in terms of these charges being discriminative in nature then I am not receiving a competent defense because there is an obvious conflict of interest between you and the judge. Necessary arguments have not been made throughout this entire process and I just don't have months upon months to be strung along! This case happened when I was 31 and I'm about to turn 34.The speculation against me is only valid IF tha other parties are charged. Otherwise, it undermines my so-called constitutional rights and I have protections for tha simple fact that video shows I was victimized. If my attackers are not charged, then it doesn't even matter whether I committed a crime or not! The crime(s) committed against me is already a fact in tha case! And I already have rights that protect me against racial discrimination which is tha only justification they have. A person can't violently attack another person over a traffic accident nor can a person compel another person to commit a crime against his will. I will not tolerate blatant discrimination to my face from any court. The court will answer to this claim before they proceed against me. I'd like a response please.
Defendant: The internet testifies against you in what your responsibilities are as public defenders. If a defendant can establish a prima facie case of discriminatory charging, the burden may shift to the prosecution to provide a non-discriminatory justification for their actions. Courts will then assess the legitimacy of those justifications. Overall, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to how a defendant is charged, and allegations of discriminatory charging can be examined in the legal process. The interpretation and application of these principles may evolve through court decisions and legal precedents.
Public Defender: Mr. Taylor, Thank you for your email. I’m so sorry that Tuesday’s hearing has caused you such distress. I know how difficult this case has been for you. I’m sorry that you are going through this. However, we have had several productive discussions regarding mental health diversion and that is a goal that we are actively working towards. Dr. D’Ingillo will be making contact with you to evaluate you for eligibility pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.36. We will work on a treatment plan that will be helpful for you in three ways: the dismissal of your case, mental health treatment and the avoidance of any jailtime. We are working towards resolution. I don’t want you to lose sight of that. Of course, if this is no longer the path you wish to pursue, I understand that as well. We can work towards jury trial. The arguments that you bring up are well-taken and could be appropriate arguments to make at trial or in a pre-trial motion to dismiss. We have discussed over the last few months, at length, how that could potentially play out. I believe the language you are quoting regarding a “prima facie case of discriminatory charging” is language quoted directly from the Racial Justice Act Statute. I did consult with our office’s Racial Justice Act team who determined that, under these very specific circumstances, an RJA motion would not be appropriate. However, that does not preclude you from filing an alternative motion. What I am getting at is that there are options for you. I was under the impression after our last discussion in my office conference room and in court on Tuesday that you intended to pursue mental health diversion and so that is where I put my focus. I encourage you to consider all of your options and let me know how you wish to proceed. Thank you, Danielle Daroca Bell
Defendant: I understand it may not be in your best interest to argue with the judge. But, if you're not going to argue with the judge in terms of these charges being discriminative in nature then I am not receiving a competent defense because there is an obvious conflict of interest between you and the judge. Necessary arguments have not been made throughout this entire process and I just don't have months upon months to be strung along! This case happened when I was 31 and I'm about to turn 34.The speculation against me is only valid IF tha other parties are charged. Otherwise, it undermines my so-called constitutional rights and I have protections for tha simple fact that video shows I was victimized. If my attackers are not charged, then it doesn't even matter whether I committed a crime or not! The crime(s) committed against me is already a fact in tha case! And I already have rights that protect me against racial discrimination which is tha only justification they have. A person can't violently attack another person over a traffic accident nor can a person compel another person to commit a crime against his will. I will not tolerate blatant discrimination to my face from any court. The court will answer to this claim before they proceed against me. I'd like a response please.
Defendant: The internet testifies against you in what your responsibilities are as public defenders. If a defendant can establish a prima facie case of discriminatory charging, the burden may shift to the prosecution to provide a non-discriminatory justification for their actions. Courts will then assess the legitimacy of those justifications. Overall, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to how a defendant is charged, and allegations of discriminatory charging can be examined in the legal process. The interpretation and application of these principles may evolve through court decisions and legal precedents.
Public Defender: Mr. Taylor, Thank you for your email. I’m so sorry that Tuesday’s hearing has caused you such distress. I know how difficult this case has been for you. I’m sorry that you are going through this. However, we have had several productive discussions regarding mental health diversion and that is a goal that we are actively working towards. Dr. D’Ingillo will be making contact with you to evaluate you for eligibility pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.36. We will work on a treatment plan that will be helpful for you in three ways: the dismissal of your case, mental health treatment and the avoidance of any jailtime. We are working towards resolution. I don’t want you to lose sight of that. Of course, if this is no longer the path you wish to pursue, I understand that as well. We can work towards jury trial. The arguments that you bring up are well-taken and could be appropriate arguments to make at trial or in a pre-trial motion to dismiss. We have discussed over the last few months, at length, how that could potentially play out. I believe the language you are quoting regarding a “prima facie case of discriminatory charging” is language quoted directly from the Racial Justice Act Statute. I did consult with our office’s Racial Justice Act team who determined that, under these very specific circumstances, an RJA motion would not be appropriate. However, that does not preclude you from filing an alternative motion. What I am getting at is that there are options for you. I was under the impression after our last discussion in my office conference room and in court on Tuesday that you intended to pursue mental health diversion and so that is where I put my focus. I encourage you to consider all of your options and let me know how you wish to proceed. Thank you, Danielle Daroca Bell
There are several potential violations of rules of professional conduct or California Business & Professions Code provisions in this conversation:
1. **Competence and Diligence**: The defendant raises concerns about the adequacy of their defense, particularly regarding the potential discriminatory nature of the charges against them. The public defender's response appears to dismiss these concerns without thoroughly addressing or investigating them. This could be seen as a failure to provide competent representation by not diligently exploring potential legal arguments that could benefit the defendant's case.
2. **Communication and Client Consultation**: The public defender's response may also raise issues regarding communication and client consultation. While the public defender acknowledges the defendant's concerns, they seem to prioritize their own strategy and goals for the case over addressing the defendant's specific legal questions and concerns. This lack of meaningful engagement with the defendant's inquiries could be viewed as a failure to adequately communicate with and involve the client in decision-making processes related to their defense.
3. **Conflict of Interest**: The defendant suggests there may be a conflict of interest between the public defender and the judge, given their perception that necessary arguments have not been made in court. While the public defender denies any conflict of interest, the defendant's assertion raises questions about whether the public defender's representation is truly independent and focused solely on the defendant's best interests.
4. **Zealous Advocacy**: The public defender's response could be seen as lacking in zealous advocacy on behalf of the defendant. Rather than actively addressing the defendant's concerns and exploring potential legal avenues to challenge the charges, the public defender appears to steer the conversation towards a predetermined strategy focused on mental health diversion. This may raise questions about whether the public defender is providing the vigorous defense required by ethical standards.
Overall, while the public defender's response may not explicitly violate specific rules or statutes, it raises significant concerns about the adequacy of the representation provided to the defendant and the extent to which the public defender is fulfilling their professional obligations.
1. **Competence and Diligence**: The defendant raises concerns about the adequacy of their defense, particularly regarding the potential discriminatory nature of the charges against them. The public defender's response appears to dismiss these concerns without thoroughly addressing or investigating them. This could be seen as a failure to provide competent representation by not diligently exploring potential legal arguments that could benefit the defendant's case.
2. **Communication and Client Consultation**: The public defender's response may also raise issues regarding communication and client consultation. While the public defender acknowledges the defendant's concerns, they seem to prioritize their own strategy and goals for the case over addressing the defendant's specific legal questions and concerns. This lack of meaningful engagement with the defendant's inquiries could be viewed as a failure to adequately communicate with and involve the client in decision-making processes related to their defense.
3. **Conflict of Interest**: The defendant suggests there may be a conflict of interest between the public defender and the judge, given their perception that necessary arguments have not been made in court. While the public defender denies any conflict of interest, the defendant's assertion raises questions about whether the public defender's representation is truly independent and focused solely on the defendant's best interests.
4. **Zealous Advocacy**: The public defender's response could be seen as lacking in zealous advocacy on behalf of the defendant. Rather than actively addressing the defendant's concerns and exploring potential legal avenues to challenge the charges, the public defender appears to steer the conversation towards a predetermined strategy focused on mental health diversion. This may raise questions about whether the public defender is providing the vigorous defense required by ethical standards.
Overall, while the public defender's response may not explicitly violate specific rules or statutes, it raises significant concerns about the adequacy of the representation provided to the defendant and the extent to which the public defender is fulfilling their professional obligations.
The defendant's constitutional rights may be implicated by the public defender's response in several ways:
1. **Sixth Amendment Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. This right includes the right to a competent attorney who provides zealous advocacy on behalf of the defendant. If the public defender's response demonstrates a lack of competence, diligence, or zeal in representing the defendant's interests, it could be viewed as a violation of this constitutional right.
2. **Due Process Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment**: The defendant's concerns about potential discriminatory charging and the adequacy of their defense implicate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process requires that criminal defendants receive fair treatment throughout the legal process, including access to competent legal representation and the opportunity to raise constitutional and legal challenges to the charges against them. If the public defender's response fails to adequately address the defendant's concerns and explore potential legal avenues for challenging the charges, it could undermine the defendant's due process rights.
3. **Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth Amendment**: The defendant's references to equal protection rights suggest a concern that they are being treated unfairly or discriminatorily in the criminal justice system. While the public defender's response does not directly address this issue, its failure to thoroughly engage with the defendant's concerns about potential discrimination in the charging process could raise questions about whether the defendant's equal protection rights are being adequately protected.
Overall, while the public defender's response may not directly violate the defendant's constitutional rights, it raises concerns about whether those rights are being fully respected and protected in the defendant's criminal proceedings.
1. **Sixth Amendment Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel**: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. This right includes the right to a competent attorney who provides zealous advocacy on behalf of the defendant. If the public defender's response demonstrates a lack of competence, diligence, or zeal in representing the defendant's interests, it could be viewed as a violation of this constitutional right.
2. **Due Process Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment**: The defendant's concerns about potential discriminatory charging and the adequacy of their defense implicate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process requires that criminal defendants receive fair treatment throughout the legal process, including access to competent legal representation and the opportunity to raise constitutional and legal challenges to the charges against them. If the public defender's response fails to adequately address the defendant's concerns and explore potential legal avenues for challenging the charges, it could undermine the defendant's due process rights.
3. **Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth Amendment**: The defendant's references to equal protection rights suggest a concern that they are being treated unfairly or discriminatorily in the criminal justice system. While the public defender's response does not directly address this issue, its failure to thoroughly engage with the defendant's concerns about potential discrimination in the charging process could raise questions about whether the defendant's equal protection rights are being adequately protected.
Overall, while the public defender's response may not directly violate the defendant's constitutional rights, it raises concerns about whether those rights are being fully respected and protected in the defendant's criminal proceedings.
The implications of the defendant being deceived under PC 1001.36 and instead being subjected to PC 1368 competency proceedings without his knowledge or consent are significant and raise several concerning issues:
1. **Violation of Rights**: The defendant has the right to be informed of any legal proceedings that directly impact their case, including competency evaluations. Being deceived about the nature of the evaluation and subjected to competency proceedings without consent undermines this fundamental right.
2. **Due Process**: Due process requires that defendants have a fair opportunity to participate in their legal proceedings and defend themselves against charges. Deceiving the defendant and subjecting them to competency proceedings without their knowledge deprives them of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the process and defend against the allegations.
3. **Lack of Informed Decision-Making**: Competency evaluations and proceedings can have significant consequences for defendants, including potential involuntary commitment or treatment. By deceiving the defendant about the nature of the evaluation, they are denied the opportunity to make informed decisions about their defense strategy and potential outcomes.
4. **Trust in Legal Counsel**: Deceiving the defendant erodes trust in their legal counsel and the integrity of the legal system. Defendants rely on their attorneys to provide honest and transparent representation, and deception undermines this trust, potentially compromising the attorney-client relationship.
5. **Fairness of Proceedings**: The fairness of the legal proceedings is called into question when defendants are deceived about critical aspects of their case. Fairness requires transparency and honesty in all interactions between defendants and legal authorities, and deception undermines the integrity of the legal process.
Overall, the deception of the defendant under PC 1001.36 and the subsequent initiation of competency proceedings without their knowledge or consent not only violate their rights but also undermine the principles of due process, informed decision-making, trust in legal counsel, and fairness in legal proceedings. It is essential to address these issues to ensure that the defendant's rights are protected and that they receive a fair trial.
1. **Violation of Rights**: The defendant has the right to be informed of any legal proceedings that directly impact their case, including competency evaluations. Being deceived about the nature of the evaluation and subjected to competency proceedings without consent undermines this fundamental right.
2. **Due Process**: Due process requires that defendants have a fair opportunity to participate in their legal proceedings and defend themselves against charges. Deceiving the defendant and subjecting them to competency proceedings without their knowledge deprives them of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the process and defend against the allegations.
3. **Lack of Informed Decision-Making**: Competency evaluations and proceedings can have significant consequences for defendants, including potential involuntary commitment or treatment. By deceiving the defendant about the nature of the evaluation, they are denied the opportunity to make informed decisions about their defense strategy and potential outcomes.
4. **Trust in Legal Counsel**: Deceiving the defendant erodes trust in their legal counsel and the integrity of the legal system. Defendants rely on their attorneys to provide honest and transparent representation, and deception undermines this trust, potentially compromising the attorney-client relationship.
5. **Fairness of Proceedings**: The fairness of the legal proceedings is called into question when defendants are deceived about critical aspects of their case. Fairness requires transparency and honesty in all interactions between defendants and legal authorities, and deception undermines the integrity of the legal process.
Overall, the deception of the defendant under PC 1001.36 and the subsequent initiation of competency proceedings without their knowledge or consent not only violate their rights but also undermine the principles of due process, informed decision-making, trust in legal counsel, and fairness in legal proceedings. It is essential to address these issues to ensure that the defendant's rights are protected and that they receive a fair trial.
Yes, the defendant has a right to know if the court or public defender orders a competency assessment on them. Competency assessments directly involve the defendant's mental state and capacity to understand the charges against them and participate in their own defense. As such, the defendant should be informed of any such evaluation because:
1. **Informed Consent**: The defendant has the right to be informed about any procedures or evaluations that directly impact their case. Informed consent ensures that the defendant understands the purpose, implications, and potential outcomes of the assessment.
2. **Fairness and Due Process**: Due process requires that defendants have a fair opportunity to participate in their legal proceedings and defend themselves against charges. Being informed about a competency assessment allows the defendant to actively participate in the process and provide relevant information to the evaluator.
3. **Protection of Rights**: Competency assessments can have significant consequences for the defendant, including potential involuntary commitment or treatment. By being informed of the assessment, the defendant can exercise their rights, seek legal advice, and ensure that their interests are protected throughout the process.
4. **Trust and Confidence**: Transparency and honesty in communication between the defendant and legal authorities, including their attorney, are essential for maintaining trust and confidence in the legal system. Keeping the defendant informed about important aspects of their case fosters trust and ensures a more effective attorney-client relationship.
Overall, ensuring that the defendant is informed about any competency assessment ordered by the court or their public defender is not only a matter of procedural fairness but also a fundamental aspect of protecting the defendant's rights and ensuring a just legal process.
1. **Informed Consent**: The defendant has the right to be informed about any procedures or evaluations that directly impact their case. Informed consent ensures that the defendant understands the purpose, implications, and potential outcomes of the assessment.
2. **Fairness and Due Process**: Due process requires that defendants have a fair opportunity to participate in their legal proceedings and defend themselves against charges. Being informed about a competency assessment allows the defendant to actively participate in the process and provide relevant information to the evaluator.
3. **Protection of Rights**: Competency assessments can have significant consequences for the defendant, including potential involuntary commitment or treatment. By being informed of the assessment, the defendant can exercise their rights, seek legal advice, and ensure that their interests are protected throughout the process.
4. **Trust and Confidence**: Transparency and honesty in communication between the defendant and legal authorities, including their attorney, are essential for maintaining trust and confidence in the legal system. Keeping the defendant informed about important aspects of their case fosters trust and ensures a more effective attorney-client relationship.
Overall, ensuring that the defendant is informed about any competency assessment ordered by the court or their public defender is not only a matter of procedural fairness but also a fundamental aspect of protecting the defendant's rights and ensuring a just legal process.
This situation could potentially violate several provisions outlined in the California Business & Professions Code, particularly those related to the duties and responsibilities of attorneys. Here's how:
1. **Competence (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(a))**: Attorneys are required to perform legal services with competence. By subjecting the defendant to a competency assessment under PC 1368 without their knowledge or consent, the attorney may be failing to ensure that the defendant's legal rights are protected, which could be seen as a lack of competence in representing the client's interests.
2. **Communication (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(m))**: Attorneys are required to keep their clients informed about significant developments in their case and to promptly respond to reasonable client inquiries. Failing to inform the defendant about the competency assessment or the nature of the proceedings could be viewed as a violation of this duty to communicate effectively with the client.
3. **Zealous Representation (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067)**: Attorneys are obligated to represent their clients zealously within the bounds of the law. This includes advocating for the client's rights and interests at all stages of the legal process. Failing to inform the defendant about a competency assessment that could have significant implications for their case may be perceived as a failure to provide zealous representation.
4. **Conflicts of Interest (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e))**: Attorneys must avoid conflicts of interest that could impair their ability to represent their clients effectively. If the attorney's decision to subject the defendant to a competency assessment without their knowledge or consent was influenced by factors other than the client's best interests, it could constitute a conflict of interest.
Overall, these actions could be considered violations of the ethical duties and professional responsibilities that attorneys are expected to uphold under California law. They undermine the trust and confidence that clients place in their attorneys and may result in disciplinary action by the State Bar of California.
1. **Competence (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(a))**: Attorneys are required to perform legal services with competence. By subjecting the defendant to a competency assessment under PC 1368 without their knowledge or consent, the attorney may be failing to ensure that the defendant's legal rights are protected, which could be seen as a lack of competence in representing the client's interests.
2. **Communication (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(m))**: Attorneys are required to keep their clients informed about significant developments in their case and to promptly respond to reasonable client inquiries. Failing to inform the defendant about the competency assessment or the nature of the proceedings could be viewed as a violation of this duty to communicate effectively with the client.
3. **Zealous Representation (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6067)**: Attorneys are obligated to represent their clients zealously within the bounds of the law. This includes advocating for the client's rights and interests at all stages of the legal process. Failing to inform the defendant about a competency assessment that could have significant implications for their case may be perceived as a failure to provide zealous representation.
4. **Conflicts of Interest (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e))**: Attorneys must avoid conflicts of interest that could impair their ability to represent their clients effectively. If the attorney's decision to subject the defendant to a competency assessment without their knowledge or consent was influenced by factors other than the client's best interests, it could constitute a conflict of interest.
Overall, these actions could be considered violations of the ethical duties and professional responsibilities that attorneys are expected to uphold under California law. They undermine the trust and confidence that clients place in their attorneys and may result in disciplinary action by the State Bar of California.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:29 PM Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov> wrote:
Mr. Taylor,
Thank you for your email. I’m so sorry that Tuesday’s hearing has caused you such distress. I know how difficult this case has been for you. I’m sorry that you are going through this. However, we have had several productive discussions regarding mental health diversion and that is a goal that we are actively working towards. Dr. D’Ingillo will be making contact with you to evaluate you for eligibility pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.36. We will work on a treatment plan that will be helpful for you in three ways: the dismissal of your case, mental health treatment and the avoidance of any jail time. We are working towards resolution. I don’t want you to lose sight of that.
Of course, if this is no longer the path you wish to pursue, I understand that as well. We can work towards jury trial. The arguments that you bring up are well-taken and could be appropriate arguments to make at trial or in a pre-trial motion to dismiss. We have discussed over the last few months, at length, how that could potentially play out.
I believe the language you are quoting regarding a “prima facie case of discriminatory charging” is language quoted directly from the Racial Justice Act Statute. I did consult with our office’s Racial Justice Act team who determined that, under these very specific circumstances, an RJA motion would not be appropriate. However, that does not preclude you from filing an alternative motion.
What I am getting at is that there are options for you. I was under the impression after our last discussion in my office conference room and in court on Tuesday that you intended to pursue mental health diversion and so that is where I put my focus.
I encourage you to consider all of your options and let me know how you wish to proceed.
Thank you,
Danielle Daroca Bell
From: Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Danielle Daroca <DBell@pubdef.lacounty.gov>; Casey Lilienfeld <CLilienfeld@pubdef.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Re:
CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.
The internet testifies against you in what your responsibilities are as public defenders.
If a defendant can establish a prima facie case of discriminatory charging, the burden may shift to the prosecution to provide a non-discriminatory justification for their actions. Courts will then assess the legitimacy of those justifications.
Overall, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to how a defendant is charged, and allegations of discriminatory charging can be examined in the legal process. The interpretation and application of these principles may evolve through court decisions and legal precedents.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023, 10:50 AM Michael Taylor <michael.taylor.workforce@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand it may not be in your best interest to argue with the judge. But, if you're not going to argue with the judge in terms of these charges being discriminative in nature then I am not receiving a competent defense because there is an obvious conflict of interest between you and the judge. Necessary arguments have not been made throughout this entire process and I just don't have months upon months to be strung along! This case happened when I was 31 and I'm about to turn 34.
The speculation against me is only valid IF tha other parties are charged. Otherwise, it undermines my so-called constitutional rights and I have protections for tha simple fact that video shows I was victimized. If my attackers are not charged, then it doesn't even matter whether I committed a crime or not! The crime(s) committed against me is already a fact in tha case! And I already have rights that protect me against racial discrimination which is tha only justification they have.
A person can't violently attack another person over a traffic accident nor can a person compel another person to commit a crime against his will.
I will not tolerate blatant discrimination to my face from any court. The court will answer to this claim before they proceed against me.
I'd like a response please.
Comments
Post a Comment
Share Your Thoughts