Conservatorship of Baber and Double jeopardy
Conservatorship of Baber deals with whether the conservatee can object to testifying in their own trial and whether the doctrine of double jeopardy applies. In addition, the court ruled that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to consider any evidence of third party assistance to the conservatee during the trial.
The trial court did not allow petitioner to call Robert to the stand on the ground that this might compromise Robert's Fifth Amendment right not to be called as a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. Robert's own counsel did not call him to testify on his own behalf.
In re. Cons of Baber
We believe that application of the doctrine of double jeopardy would frustrate, rather than promote, the discovery of truth in conservatorship [153 Cal. App. 3d 550] proceedings. We cannot overemphasize the importance of recognizing that a prospective conservatee is not a criminal defendant but, in many cases, a person in dire need of the state's assistance. A conservatorship proceeding is not a prosecution for a particular act, but an attempt to determine a condition which is subject to change. To apply the double jeopardy principle could deprive a person of much needed care, simply because he had previously been found not to need it.
The court argues that the doctrine of double jeopardy plays against the patient's best interests. The court cites how the LPS act was put into effect as a safeguard against mental illness from destroying a patient's ability to care for their own needs. By invoking the double jeopardy doctrine the patient would disrupt the “delicate balance between the medical objectives of treating sick people without legal delays and the equally valid legal aim of insuring that persons are not deprived of their liberties without due process of the law.” (Id. at 635). On behalf of the patient many cite how their civil liberties are being violated because they feel that being reconserved is the same as being accused of a crime twice. However, the law specifically cites how LPS proceedings are different from criminal proceedings as LPS proceedings are therapeutic and criminal more punitive. That being said the patient does have a point in making that the act allows for "public guardian to initiate a conservatorship proceeding whenever it sees fit".
The only professional analyst who thought Robert would be able to cope outside a clinical facility was the clinical psychologist who had been hired to testify on his behalf. Yet even this professional, who had only had the opportunity to speak with Robert for one hour, did not think Robert could provide for himself for any determinable period without the assistance of a third party.
The only evidence of available third party assistance was given by Mrs. Baber, Robert's mother, and a conservatorship investigator employed by Robert's attorneys. Mrs. Baber testified that she would only be able to take [153 Cal. App. 3d 548] Robert in for two weeks, if he were released, due to space constraints in her apartment and restrictions imposed by her landlord. She was willing, however, to help Robert in locating an apartment and in managing his affairs. The conservatorship investigator testified that several community groups would be available to look in on Robert occasionally and to help him adjust to being independent.
In this case the public conservator did abuse its discretion as evidence that demonstrates that the conservatee can survive and provide for his own needs with assistance carries great probative value in determining grave disability. In order to preserve this, jury instructions must follow as well as the jury in jury trial must take notice of the conservatee's assistance when determining whether the conservatee is gravely disabled. In this case even though the mother did not offer residence to the conservatee, she continued to offer assistance with finances and managing his affairs from afar. That too counts as assistance even if it doesn't mean immediate residence.
Finally, the court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing petitioner conservator's request to instruct the jury not to consider what type of treatment respondent would receive if found gravely disabled, but petitioner was not prejudiced by the error.
I personally disagree with this as the court or jury should take notice of the treatment that the conservatee would be subject to if found to be gravely disabled. The court would argue that the point may create bias with potential jurors and deter from the overall picture, but I deem it that if the conservatee can be gravely disabled but severe placement in a closed locked treatment facility may be excessive and inappropriate placement depending on the circumstances. By knowing that the jury would perhaps weight differently knowing those facts.
Conservatorship of Baber deals with whether the conservatee can object to testifying in their own trial and whether the doctrine of double jeopardy applies. In addition, the court ruled that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury to consider any evidence of third party assistance to the conservatee during the trial.
The trial court did not allow petitioner to call Robert to the stand on the ground that this might compromise Robert's Fifth Amendment right not to be called as a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. Robert's own counsel did not call him to testify on his own behalf.
In re. Cons of Baber
We believe that application of the doctrine of double jeopardy would frustrate, rather than promote, the discovery of truth in conservatorship [153 Cal. App. 3d 550] proceedings. We cannot overemphasize the importance of recognizing that a prospective conservatee is not a criminal defendant but, in many cases, a person in dire need of the state's assistance. A conservatorship proceeding is not a prosecution for a particular act, but an attempt to determine a condition which is subject to change. To apply the double jeopardy principle could deprive a person of much needed care, simply because he had previously been found not to need it.
The court argues that the doctrine of double jeopardy plays against the patient's best interests. The court cites how the LPS act was put into effect as a safeguard against mental illness from destroying a patient's ability to care for their own needs. By invoking the double jeopardy doctrine the patient would disrupt the “delicate balance between the medical objectives of treating sick people without legal delays and the equally valid legal aim of insuring that persons are not deprived of their liberties without due process of the law.” (Id. at 635). On behalf of the patient many cite how their civil liberties are being violated because they feel that being reconserved is the same as being accused of a crime twice. However, the law specifically cites how LPS proceedings are different from criminal proceedings as LPS proceedings are therapeutic and criminal more punitive. That being said the patient does have a point in making that the act allows for "public guardian to initiate a conservatorship proceeding whenever it sees fit".
The only professional analyst who thought Robert would be able to cope outside a clinical facility was the clinical psychologist who had been hired to testify on his behalf. Yet even this professional, who had only had the opportunity to speak with Robert for one hour, did not think Robert could provide for himself for any determinable period without the assistance of a third party.
The only evidence of available third party assistance was given by Mrs. Baber, Robert's mother, and a conservatorship investigator employed by Robert's attorneys. Mrs. Baber testified that she would only be able to take [153 Cal. App. 3d 548] Robert in for two weeks, if he were released, due to space constraints in her apartment and restrictions imposed by her landlord. She was willing, however, to help Robert in locating an apartment and in managing his affairs. The conservatorship investigator testified that several community groups would be available to look in on Robert occasionally and to help him adjust to being independent.
In this case the public conservator did abuse its discretion as evidence that demonstrates that the conservatee can survive and provide for his own needs with assistance carries great probative value in determining grave disability. In order to preserve this, jury instructions must follow as well as the jury in jury trial must take notice of the conservatee's assistance when determining whether the conservatee is gravely disabled. In this case even though the mother did not offer residence to the conservatee, she continued to offer assistance with finances and managing his affairs from afar. That too counts as assistance even if it doesn't mean immediate residence.
Finally, the court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing petitioner conservator's request to instruct the jury not to consider what type of treatment respondent would receive if found gravely disabled, but petitioner was not prejudiced by the error.
I personally disagree with this as the court or jury should take notice of the treatment that the conservatee would be subject to if found to be gravely disabled. The court would argue that the point may create bias with potential jurors and deter from the overall picture, but I deem it that if the conservatee can be gravely disabled but severe placement in a closed locked treatment facility may be excessive and inappropriate placement depending on the circumstances. By knowing that the jury would perhaps weight differently knowing those facts.
Look how many cases there were that involved issues over third party assistance