Thursday, September 2, 2021

Edward Wycoff: San Francisco: Blindness in the courtroom: The Edward Wycoff story..."In his report, the psychologist stated, “Because of his grandiosity, [defendant] is not able to rationally consider ‘telling his story’ with the assistance of an attorney. On this ground, I find him incompetent to stand trial.” Despite the psychologist’s evaluation, Judge John Kennedy rejected the psychologist’s opinion and failed to initiate competency procedures highlighted in California Penal Code sections 1368 and 1369, which require criminal proceedings be suspended and competency proceedings commenced if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge” regarding the defendant’s competence. After the judge’s dismissal and personally finding Wycoff mentally competent to stand trial, Wycoff was allowed to represent himself in court."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Blindness in the courtroom. It was as if a strange virus (we know about those) has infected the chamber blinding the judge and the jurors to the obvious mental incompetence of the defendant facing two counts of murder. In their blind eyes Edward Wycoff was just fine. That's the Steven King version. Now for the 'seeing' world version - that in spite of a psychiatrist's opinion that Mr. Wycoff was incompetent to stand trial  the judge plowed ahead, without even pausing hold a hearing to determine if Mr. Wycoff was fit to stand trial, and allowed him to represent himself. (On two counts of murder!)  The trial  got under way, the jury convicted, and then proceeded to sentence Mr.  Wycoff to death on both counts - perhaps under the illusion that he could be killed twice. Fortunately there were several appeal court judges who had much healthier vision - no virus - who reversed the conviction. Will prosecutors plow ahead to try a court certified insane man as a criminal?  We're watching!  

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "According to California Supreme Court Justice Martin Jenkins, Wycoff “treated the trial like an entertainment show, made numerous jokes, and admitted all the facts underlying the charges. Most of Wycoff’s defense involved story-telling, speculation, and hearsay—demonstrating Wycoff’s inability to represent himself, said the court. After Wycoff admitted to both killings, sentencing procedures came on Wycoff’s birthday. During the sentencing, Wycoff exclaimed, “Welcome to my birthday party. Is everyone having fun? Is everyone having a good time?” The jury deliberated for less than two hours, immediately finding Wycoff guilty of both counts of first degree murder. During the penalty phase of Wycoff’s case, the defendant went further and insulted the jury, stating, “For the wrong decision that was made yesterday, when do I get to beat the amoral tar out of these lumpers.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "CA Supreme Court Reverses Edward Wycoff's Double Murder Conviction," by Reporter Angie Madrid, published by The Davis Vanguard on August 27, 2021.

GIST:  "The California Supreme Court reversed defendant Edward Wycoff’s conviction of double murders this week after the district court failed to commence the competency procedures necessary under law.

Defendant Edward Wycoff was sentenced to death after being found guilty for first degree murder in the 2006 killings of his sister and brother-in-law in Contra Costa County.

Prior to the conviction, a court-appointed psychologist evaluated the defendant and deemed Wycoff incompetent to stand trial.

In his report, the psychologist stated, “Because of his grandiosity, [defendant] is not able to rationally consider ‘telling his story’ with the assistance of  an attorney. On this ground, I find him incompetent to stand trial.”

Despite the psychologist’s evaluation, Judge John Kennedy rejected the psychologist’s opinion and failed to initiate competency procedures highlighted in California Penal Code sections 1368 and 1369, which require criminal proceedings be suspended and competency proceedings commenced if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge” regarding the defendant’s competence.

After the judge’s dismissal and personally finding Wycoff mentally competent to stand trial, Wycoff was allowed to represent himself in court.

According to California Supreme Court Justice Martin Jenkins, Wycoff “treated the trial like an entertainment show, made numerous jokes, and admitted all the facts underlying the charges.”

Most of Wycoff’s defense involved story-telling, speculation, and hearsay—demonstrating Wycoff’s inability to represent himself, said the court.

After Wycoff admitted to both killings, sentencing procedures came on Wycoff’s birthday. During the sentencing, Wycoff exclaimed, “Welcome to my birthday party. Is everyone having fun? Is everyone having a good time?”

The jury deliberated for less than two hours, immediately finding Wycoff guilty of both counts of first degree murder.

During the penalty phase of Wycoff’s case, the defendant went further and insulted the jury, stating, “For the wrong decision that was made yesterday, when do I get to beat the amoral tar out of these lumpers.”

According to the court’s ruling, his reaction to the jury showcased his mental illness and incompetency to represent himself in court.

After deliberating on Wycoff’s penalty, the jury returned a verdict of death as to both counts of murder.

The victims’ son addressed the court over the verdict, asserting, “I think it’s very apparent [the defendant] is not a normal person, that he struggles with mental issues even if he didn’t make that argument…For us to kill a crazy person, I think would be wrong.”

Due to the court’s error in failing to initiate formal competency procedures, the California Supreme Court made the unanimous decision to reverse Wycoff’s double murder conviction.

Justice Martin Jenkins stated in the ruling that the court was “presented with substantial evidence of defendant’s mental incompetence — specifically, his inability, due to mental illness, to consult rationally with counsel — and therefore the court was obligated to initiate the competency procedures set forth in sections 1368 and 1369, which it failed to do.”

The court has reversed the conviction entirely, and Wycoff may be retried."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/08/ca-supreme-court-reverses-edward-wycoffs-double-murder-conviction/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;