USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX Case No SX 19 $11011 Charges 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Murder First Degree 14 V I C § 922(a)(2) Murder First Degree PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 14 V I C § 2253(a) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm During the PI ANTI”, Commission of a Crime of Violence V 14 V I C § 295(1) and 16 V I C § 91(b)(l&2) Assault First Degree/Domestic Violence JAMAL JOSEPH 14 V I C § 2256(a) Possession or Sale of Ammunition DFFF‘DANT 14 V I C § 297(2) and 16 v I C § 91(b)(1&2) Assault Third Degree/Domestic Violence 23 V I C § 479(d) Discharging or Aiming Firearms CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER 3}? Appearances Eric Chancellor, Esq Department of Justice Christiansted U S Vilgin Islands For Plaintiff Yolan Brow Ross, Esq Office of the Territorial Public Defender Kingshill U S Virgin Islands For Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLOCKS Presiding Judge ‘11 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court for a competency hearing on February 28 2020 and October 22 2020 for the determination of Defendant Jamal 0 Joseph 5 (hereinaftex Defendant ) competency to stand trial People QM“: Virgin Alandn JamalO Joseph SX 19 CR ()1 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 231’ Page 2 01 17 BACKGROUND (II 2 On or about January 12 2019 Defendant was arrested in connection with the alleged shooting and killing of his brother Allan Joseph On or about January 25 2019 the People of the Virgin Islands (hereinafter Peopie ) filed an information charging Defendant with the following seven counts Count One Murder in the First Degree in violation of Titie 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Count Two Murder in the First Degree in vioiation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(2) Count Three Unauthoxized Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime of Violence in violation of Titie 14 V IC § 2253(a) Count Pout Assault in the First Degree/Domestic Violence in violation of Title 14 V I C § 295(1) and Titie 16 V I C § 91(b)(1&2) Count Five Possession or Sale of Ammunition in violation of Title 14 V 1 C § 2256(a) Count Six Assault in the Third Degree/Domestic Violence in Violation of Title 14 V I C § 297 and Title 16 V I C § 91(b)( 1&2) and Count Seven Disehatging or Aiming a Firearm in violation of Title 23 V I C § 479(d) ‘11 3 On February 4 2019 the defense counsel filed a motion to require a psychiatric examination and evaluation of Defendant to determine (a) Whether he was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time he ailegedly committed the acts with which he is being charged and (b) Whether he is competent to stand trial for the alleged acts (Motion to Require a Psychiatric Examination and Evaluation p 2) On February 22 2019 the Court entered an ordel whereby the Court inter alia granted the defense counsel s motion to require a psychiatric examination and evaluation of Defendant ordered that Defendant be given a psychiatric examination and evaluation by the Department of Health Division of Mental Health and ordered that the psychiatric test(s) given should determine whether Defendant is competent to stand trial and whether Defendant was suffering from a mental disease/defect at the time the alleged offense was committed (Feb 22 2019 Order pp 1 2) On May 21 2019 the defense counsel filed a People of the Virgin Istand: t Jamal 0 Joseph SK 1‘) CR 01 l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2-3 P Page '1 of 17 motion to submit evaluation report under seal 1 On June 10, 2019, the defense coensel filed a motion to file motion for competency hearing under seal 1 Subsequently the evaluation ieports of ' The defense LounSel 5 one page motion to submit evaluation report under seat eonsisted 01 only two Sentences COMES NOW the Detendant JAMAL O JOQEPH and respeetlully moves this Honorable Court tor permission to submit the attached Comprehensive Psyehiatrie Evaluation under seal WHEREFORE Mr Joseph prays that this Court the within request together with sueh other and further reliel as the Court seems just and proper The Court must note that the detehee eounsel s motion to submit eValuation report under seal oniy referenced Dr E» adne Sang 5 April l9 ’0“) report titled Comprehensive Psyehiatrie E\ aluation At the time the defense eounsel filed the motion to submit evaluation report under seal Dr Leighmin 3 Lu has yet to finalize his report which is dated ()etober E4 2019 and titled ?syehiatrie Report Thus the Court Witt address the defense enumel s motion to submit evaluatiun report under seal (inky as to Dr Sang 5. evaluation report The Court has not previously ruled on the defense eounbei .5 motion to submit evaluation report under seal Rule 47th) 01 Virgin islands Rules of Criminal Proeedure provides {b) Form and Content of a Motion and Opposition A motion on an opposition exeept when made during a trial or hearing must be in writing unless the eourt permits the party to make the motion or opposition by other means it must state the Glounds on which it is based the legal authorities upon which it relies and the relief or order sought It may he supported by affidavit Any motion requesting affirmatiwe reliet should he aeeompanied by a proposed order for eXeeution by the eourt VI R CRIM P 47th) Here the defense eounsel s motion to submit Dr Sang s etaluation report untiei Seal hailed to state the grounds on whieh it is basal and the legal authorities upon whieh it relied on in Violation of Rule 47(b) 01 Virgin Islands Rules 01 Criminal Pioeedure See also!" 1e CatalutLittg 67 VI 16 n 12 (VI Super Ct 2015)( The Supieme Court oi the Virgin Islands has established that in order tor a motion to be properly before the eourt parties must support their arouments by eiting the propel legal authorin statute or rule ) Antilles School Int 1 Lembath 64 VI 400 n l? (V 1 20th) ( Members of the Viraih Islands Bar must be econilant 01 their responsihitity to serve as advoeates tor their elients whieh ineiudes making alt neeessary Eegal arguments '3 Joseph t Joseph ”025 V I LEXIS 43 *5 (V I Supei Ct Apr 2? 2015) (the Court Witt not make a movants arguments tor him when he has failed to do so) The Court will also note that while the detense eounsel moved to submit Dr Sang 5 evaluation report under seal Dr Sang was questioned extensively regarding her evaluation report at the February 28 2020 eornpeteney hearing whieh was a publie hearing Thus the eontent 01 Dr Sang 5 evaluation report was readily made publie at the February 28 2020 eompeteney hearing and is subject to publie diselosure As sueh the Court will deny the defense eounsel s motion to submit Dr Sang 5 evaluation report under seal 1 The defense eounsel 5 one pave motion to tile motion for eompetehey heating under seat eonsisted 01 only two sentenees COMES NOW the Defendant JAMAL O JOSEPH and respeettully moves this Honorable Court for permission to tile the attaehed Motion for Competeney Hearing and proposed Order under seal WHEREFORE Mr Joseph prays that this Court the within request together with such other and further reliet as the Court seems just and proper The Court has not previously luted on the defense eounsel s motion to lite motion tor competency hearing under seat Here simiiar t0 the defense eounsel s motion to submit Dr Sang 5 evaluation report under seal the defense eounsel s motion to tile motion for eompeteney heating under seal failed to state the grounds on which it is based and the legal authorities upon which it relied on in violation of Rule 47(b) of Virgin Islands Rules 01 Climinal Proeedure See supra footnote E The Court will similarly note that while the defense LounSeI mowed to tile motion for eompcteney hearing under seal the February 28 2020 eompeteney hearino was a publie hearing and the eontent of the hearing is People of the Vzrgm [clam]: I Jamal 0 Joseph sx 19 CR 011 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2 g P Page 4 0f 17 Dr Evadne Sang and Dr Leighmin .1 Lu both psychiatrist who have examined and treated Defendant were submitted under seal 1 ‘11 4 On September 27 2019 the Court entered an order whereby the Court inter alia ordered Winnie Testamark Director of the Bureau of Corrections Justa Encamacion Commissioner of the Depaltment of Health and Venita Bicette Director at the Division of Mental Health appear before this Court on October 18 2019 to show cause why the Burau of Corrections and the Department of Health Division of Mental Health should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the Court 3 June 20 2019 and July 29 2019 Orders (Sep 27 2019 Order p 2) The Court explained in its September 27 2019 order THIS MATTER is before the Court for Status on June 20 2019 Mr Joseph is presently in the custody of the Bureau of Corrections and has been so held since his arrest on January 12 2019 At the request of defense counsel Mr Joseph underwent a psychiatric evaluation which was performed by Dr Evadne Sang on April 9 2019 Defense counsel moved for a competency hearing on June 10 2019 In a status hearing held on June 20 2019 the Court determined Dr Sang 5 report to be insufficient for purposes of a competency hearing Therefore the Court ordered that another evaluation be done and report submitted and scheduled the competency hearing for July 29 2019 On July 29 2019 the parties appeared but the competency hearing could not proceed because Mr Joseph had not been reevaluated The Court ordered that the Bureau of Corrections must complete and submit the reevaluation within thirty (30) days The Court further rescheduled the competency hearing for September 6 2019 and ordered the psychiatrist responsible for the ieevaluation appear on said date On September 6 2019 the parties appeared for the competency hearing Yet again the competency hearing could not proceed because Mr Joseph had not been reevaluated (Id at pp 1 2) On February 28 2020 this matter came before the Court for a competency hearing whereby the People 5 witnesses Dr Sang and Dr Lu testified subject to public disclosure As such the Court will deny the defense counsel 5 motion to tile motion for competent.) hearing under seal 3 The defense counsel never filed a motion to submit Dr Lu 5 evaluation report under seal See supra footnote 1 People of the Vugm Islands i Jamal 0 Joseph 9X 19 CR 01 l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 3} P Page 5 0t 17 (II 5 Dr Sang testified inter alia that she has seen Defendant seven or eight times and based on her examination of Defendant and Defendant 5 mental status examination it is her opinion that Defendant is competent to stand trial More specifically Dr Sang testified that Defendant has the ability (i) to understand the nature of the charges pending against him (ii) to understand the nature and purpose of the comt proceeding (iii) to understand his own position in this court pioceeding as the defendant (iv) to understand the role of his attorney and the ioles of others in the couitroom like the Judge the prosecuting attorney and the witnesses (v) to understand the gravity of the charges against him (vi) to understand the possible outcome or verdict in the case (vii) to understand his legal rights (viii) to testify to matters relevant or irrelevant (ix) to assist coopeiate and advise his counsel with pertinent facts surrounding the offence and the presentation of his defense and (x) to accept the advice of his counsel However Dr Sang also testified that (i) her report did not indicate that she made any inquiries into Defendant s ability to understand the nature of the charges the role of the people in the courtroom like the Judge the prosecuting attorney his attorney (ii) her report indicated that Defendant was fully oriented when last examined on April 9 2019 to person place or time but not situation (iii) Defendant not being oriented to the situation affects his capacity to understand his legal circumstances (iv) her report indicated that Defendant was unable to accept the fact that he is being charged with the shooting of his brother (v) her report indicated that she believes Defendant is competent to stand trial when last examined on April 9 2019 but Defendant could decompensate at any time (vi) her report indicated that Defendant was unable to process what happened with his brother or any part he may have played in that (vii) it is her diagnosis that Defendant has a dissociative disorder which to this day prevents him from grasping what happened with his brother (viii) to this day Defendant does not know what happened during the alleged events (ix) given that Defendant could not recall what occurred People ofrhe Virgin Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph 9X 19 CR 0] l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER ’23 P Page 6 0t 17 or what did not occur at the time of the alleged events under those circumstances Defendant does not have the capacity to stand trial (x) according to her diagnostic tests Defendant is suffering from drug induced psychosis dissociative amnesia and acute dissociative reaction immature personality (xi) Defendant is still not clear with what happened at the time of the alleged events and has given several conflicting explanations (xii) there is no tieatment that can be done with respect to the amnesia (xiii) she examined and interviewed Defendant and came to the conclusion that Defendant has the ability to assist his counsel and described her examination and interview process (xiv) she was able to effectiVely communicate with Defendant in all her interviews (xv) during her interviews with Defendant Defendant consistently stated that he did not kill his brother (xvi) during her third interview with Defendant Defendant stated that it could not have been him that killed his biother because he loves his brother too much and (xvii) during her interviews with Defendant she did not ask Defendant specific questions regarding his understanding of the role of the court the judge his lawyei and the prosecutor however she did ask Defendant similar questions and concluded that Defendant understands the role of the court the judge his lawyer and the prosecutor 4 (ll 6 Dr Lu testified inter alia that he has seen Defendant five times and it is his opinion that under the strict criteria‘ to determine whether a person is competent Defendant is seventy five to 4 Dr Sana asked Detendant about Defendant s attorney to which Defendant responded that he talked to his attorney and that he was not going to be found Guilty because he did nothing wrong and his fingerprints were not found on anything Based on this Dr Sang determined that Detendant understands the role of his lawyer and the court Dr Sang asked Defendant about whether he thou0ht he would be charged with anything by any attorney to which Defendant responde no Based on this Dr Sang determined that Defendant understands the role oi the prosecutor ‘ According to D1 Lu the strict criteria involVes the person having a reasonable understanding oi the (actual charges against him knowing how it happened being able to talk about it knowing the expected court proceeding being able to cooperate in the courtroom People ofrhe Vugm Islcmdt t Jamal 0 Joseph 2:53:31: Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Page 7 0t 17 eighty percent or marginally competent to stand trial and under the loose criteria6 to determine whether a person is competent Defendant is competent to stand trial More specifically Dr Lu testified that (i) Defendant knows his attorney by name (ii) Defendant did not quite understand what the competency hearing was for (iii) Defendant was calm lucid and coherent when Dr Lu mentioned the competency hearing (iv) Defendant is no longer hearing voices or unusual perception vision 01 that kind of psychotic symptoms (v) his diagnosis of Defendant was that he suffered from Bipolar Type 1 with Paranoid Psychotic Feature Substance Abuse Disorder and ruled out dissociative amnestic reaction (vi) he agrees with Dr Sang that Defendant suffers from dissociated amnesia but disagrees to the cause of the amnesia Dr Lu believes it is marijuana induced (vii) his conclusion is that Defendant s visions and hallucinations is induced by an illness bipolai disorder and marijuana use aggravates the symptoms (viii) Defendant sometimes remember talking to his brothel that morning but sometimes he doesn t remembei talking to his brother that he sometimes remember talking to his brother in the car but sometimes he denies talking to his brother that he remembers being in his yard caring fox his plants when he heard skydiving people coming down from the sky sometimes a bunch of them landed and sometimes only two to three landed that he heard a bang bang noise and that sometimes he felt like someone was coming to rob him so he had to defend himself ‘i[ 7 On October 22 2020 this matter came before C0uit for the completion of the competency hearing The Court heard final arguments from both parties The defense counsel argued that case law requires a rational and factual understanding of the charges and that Defendant is under the perception that people fell from the sky shot and killed his brother It is also the defense counsel 5 6 According to Dr Lu the 100st criteria involves the person having an understanding of what happened at the time the person was charged or arrested knowing his Lounselor and knowing the expeeted legal proceeding People offlw v1; gm Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR ()1 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 23 P Page 8 0t l7 opinion that Defendant does not have the ability to assist her in the proceeding The People argued that both Dr Sang and Dr Lu testified that Defendant may have some issues but still found Defendant competent to stand trial The People also argued that if Defendant can state that he did not do it then he can assist counsel The Court took the matter under advisement STANDARD OF REVIEW 118 {Ht is well settled that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process Gmemment 0f the Vugznlslandm Durant 49 VI 366 376m 12(V I 2008) (internal citation omitted) The standard for determining the menta1 competency of a criminal defendant is whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him People of the V1; gm Islands 1 Joseph 63 VI 104 110 (Super Ct July 21 2015) (quoting Dusk» 1 United States 362US 402 402 808 Ct 788 4L Ed 2d 824 (1960)) see also People (gfthe Virgm Islands t Webster 2019 V I Super l75U (ll 14 (Super Ct December 17 2019) In determining whether a defendant is competent to stand ttial court[s] must examine the unique circumstances of the case and decide whether the defendant (1) has the capacity to assist in her or his own defense and (2) comprehends the nature and possible consequences of a trial Joseph 63 V I at 110 (quoting United States 1 Brown 2015 U S Dist LEXIS 45664 at 7 8 (E D Pa Apr 8 2015) (citing United States 1 Jones 336 F 3d 245 256 (3d Cit 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted)) Courts examine the evidence of a defendant 3 irrational behavior his demeanor at trial and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial Joseph 63 VI at 110 (quoting Bram: 2015 U S Dist LEXIS 45664 at J‘7 8 (quoting Jones 336 F 3d at 256 and United State? v Leggett 162 F 3d 237 242 (3d Cir 1998») People offlze Vungslands » JamalO Joseph 9X 19 CR 01 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 28 ? ‘l[ 9 The People have the burden of proving a defendant 5 competency to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence Joseph 63 V I at 1 10 (quoting People of the Vzrgm Islands v Hymn: 2012 V I LEXIS 33 at *5 6 (V I Super Ct July 30 2012)) see also Webster 2019 V I Super 175U at ‘11 14 The trial judge is afforded considerable discretion in evaluating and weighing the testimony presented at the competency hearing Joseph 63 V I at 1 10 see Brown 2015 U S Dist LEXIS 45664 at 4‘33 34 (the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility of experts is permitted to assign greater weight to some opinions over others or altogethel reject certain expert opinions ) (see e g Unztea’ States v Chane 490 F 3d 1036 1040 (8th Cir 2007) ( stating that [a] district court may rely on one of two competing competency opinions given by qualified experts ) (internal citation omitted) United States 1 Mallow» 717 F 3d 257 264 66 (1st Cir 2013) ( holding that the district court did not err by relying on the testimony of one expert and its own observations rather than on the testimony of anothei expert )) DISCUSSION 1 Pre Trial Determination of Defendant’s Competency to Stand Trial ‘1[ 10 In applying the aforementioned standard for determining whether a criminal Defendant is competent to stand tiial the Court concludes that Defendant is not competent to stand trial ‘11 11 First based on the testimony of Dr Sang and Dr Lu the Court finds that Defendant does not have the capacity to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or to assist in his own defense As noted above Dr Sang testified that (1) her report indicated that Defendant was fully oriented when last examined on Apiii 9 2019 to person place or time but not situation and Defendant not being oriented to the situation affects his capacity to understand his legal circumstances (2) her report indicated that Defendant was unable to process what happened with his brother or any part he may have played in that (3) it is her diagnosis that People (lffhé’ Virgin Islam“ 1 Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR OI I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPERZgF Page 10 0t 17 Defendant has a dissociative disorder which to this day ptevents him from grasping what happened with his brother (4) to this day Defendant does not know what happened during the alleged events and (5) Defendant is still not clear with what happened at the time of the alleged events and has given several conflicting explanations Dr Lu testified that Defendant sometimes remember talking to his brother that morning but sometimes he doesn t remember talking to his brother that he sometimes remember talking to his brothel in the car but sometimes he denies talking to his brother that he remembers being in his yard caring for his plants when he heard skydiving people coming down from the sky sometimes a bunch of them landed and sometimes only two to three landed that he heard a bang bang noise and that sometimes he felt like someone was coming to rob him so he had to defend himself Thus the Court cannot conclude from Dr Sang or D1 Lu s testimony that Defendant has the capacity to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degiee of rational understanding or to assist in his own defense <11 12 Second based on the testimony of Dr Sang and Dr Lu the Court finds that Defendant does not have the capacity to have a factual understanding of the proceedings against him or to comprehend the nature and possible consequences of a trial Dr Sang testified that during her interviews with Defendant she did not ask Defendant specific questions regarding his understanding of the role of the court the judge his lawyer and the prosecutor Instead she asked Defendant similar questions and concluded that Defendant understands the role of the court the judge his lawyer and the prosecutor 7 However without more the Court is unpersuaded that just because when asked about his attorney Defendant responded that he talked to his attorney and that he was not going to be found guilty because he did nothing wrong and his fingerprints were not 7 See supra iootnote 4 People ofrlze V11 gm Islandt t Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR 0|! Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2 g? Page I l of 17 found on anything it meant that Defendant understands the role of his attorney and the Court especially in light of Dr Sang s testimony as a whole at the competency hearing Similarly without moxe the Court is unpersuaded that just because when asked about whether he thought he would be charged with anything by any attorney Defendant responded no it meant that Defendant understands the role of the prosecutor especially in light of Dr Sang s testimony as a whole at the competency hearing Dr Lu testified that Defendant knew his attorney by name but Defendant did not quite understand what the competency hearing was for Also it is unclear whether Dr Lu asked Defendant specific questions regarding his understanding of the role of the court the judge his lawyer and the prosecutor Thus the Court cannot conclude from Dr Sang or Dr Lu s testimony that Defendant understands the roles of the individuals involved in the proceedings against him and thereby the Court cannot conclude that Defendant has the capacity to have a factual undeistanding 0f the proceedings against him or to comprehend the nature and possible consequences of a trial (II 13 Third white the People pointed out that Dr Sang concluded that Defendant is competent to stand trial the People failed to mention that after questioning by the Court Dr Sang testified that under the circumstances that Defendant could not recall what occurred or what did not OCCUI at the time of the alleged events Defendant does not have the capacity to stand trial (II 14 Finally while the People pointed out that Dr Lu concluded that Defendant is competent to stand trial the People failed to specify that Dr Lu concluded that Defendant is only marginally competent under the strict criteria which involves the person having a reasonable understanding of the factual charges against him knowing how it happened being able to talk about it knowing the expected court proceeding being able to cooperate in the courtroom Additionally as noted above it is unclear whether Dr Lu specifically inquired about the specific factors to determine People ofthe Vlfglll Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph SK 19 CR 01 1 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Page 12 01 I7 IegaI competency In light of Dr Sang and Dr Lu e testimony as a whole at the competency hearing the Court cannot conclude that Defendant is competent to strand trial ‘I[ 15 Based on the fowgoing the Court concludes that the People has not met the burden of proving Defendant s competency to stand trial by a prepondeiance of the evidence See Joseph 63 VI at 110 (The trial judge is afforded considerable discretion in evaluating and weighing the testimony presented at the competency hearing)“ see Bromz 2015 U S Dist LEXIS 45664 at *33 34 (the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility of experts is permitted to assign greater weight to some opinions over others or altogether reject certain expert opinions ) 2 Virgin Islands Law Regarding Pre Trial Determination that Defendant is not Competent to Stand Trial ‘H 16 While there is no clear cut procedure in the Virgin Islands for a criminal defendant found not competent to stand trial before trial the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has pointed out in Duran! that there are several substantive laws that provide for the rights of mentally incompetent persons within the Virgin Islands Durant 49 V I at 375 n 9' see also People of the Vlrgm Islands t Canker 2019 V I LEXIS 38 *8 (Super Ct April 4 2019) In Damn! the Virgin Islands Supreme Court stated Contrary to the trial court s finding 5 V I C § 3637 applies not only to persons committed to a forensic unit who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity but also to those committed otherwise in accordance with law See 5 V IC § 3637(b) Moreover Chapter 45 of Title 19 provides for the commitment and release of [a]ny patient held on order of a court having criminal jurisdiction in any action or proceeding arising out of a criminal offense 19 V IC § 1201(c) see also 19 V IC § 1202 (regulating procedure regarding mentaIly ill prisoners) Additionally Section 723 of Title 19 provides for the involuntary commitment of mentally disturbed alcoholic and drug dependent persons Durant 49 V I at 375 n 9 The Court will take guidance from Durant and address the various provisions of the Virgin Islands Codes mentioned therein People ofrhe Vngm I slands t Jamal 0 Joseph 8X 19 CR ()l l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2%? A Title 5 V I C §3637 (ll 17 Title 5 V I C § 3637 is titled Mental illness of the defendant Title 5 V I C § 3637(a)8 provides for a defendant who has been found not guilty on the ground of mental illness to be committed to a forensic unit for custody and does not provide a procedure for a defendant found not competent to stand trial before trial However a§ the Virgin Islands Supreme Court pointed out in Durant Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) appliee to persons committed to a forensic unit otherwise in accordance with law 9 Durant 49 V I at 375 n 9 see also Coaker 2019 V I LEXIS 38 at *9 ( Therefore the Court finds that Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) contemplates that persons may be confined in a forensic unit for reasons other than having been found not guilty by reason of mental 8 Title 5 V [C § 3637(a) prmides (a) Ifthe defense is the mental illness ofthe Delendanl the jury shall he instrueted it they lind him not guilt) on that ground to stale that faet in their verdiet and the eourt shall thereupon eommit the Defendant to a torensie unit tor eustody eare and treatment lrom which he shall not he diseharged until the eourt is satisfied that he has regained his eapaeity tor judgment discretion and eontrol oi the eonduet oi his allairs and soeial relations If no lorensie unil exists in the Territory the Delendanl shall remain in the eustody of the Bureau of Corrections to be treated by the appropriate physieians until the necessary arrangements to transfer the Defendant to a lorensie unit outside of the territory Title 5 V I C § 3637(a) ’Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) provides (b) Where any person has been confined in a forensic unit pursuant to the prmisions of subsection (a) Of this seetion or otherwise in accordance with law and the superintendent or head of sueh forensic unit eertilies ( I) that sueh pelson has regained his eapaeity for judgment discretion and eontrol oi the eonduet 0t his attain and soeial relations (2) that in the opinion of the superintendent or head such person will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himsell or others and (3) in the opinion of the superintendent or head the person is entitled to diseharge from the torensic unit and sueh certificate is filed with the elerk oi the eourt in whieh the person was tried and a eopy thereof served on the United States attorney such eertitieate shall be suflieient to authorize the eourt to order the discharge oi the person so eonfined from further hospitalization but the court in its diserelion may or upon objection oi the United States attorney shall alter due notice hold a hearing at whieh eVidence as to mental eondition of the person so confined may be submitted ineluding the testimony of one or more psychiatrists from said forensic. unit Evidenee may be submitted upon deposition or interrogatories in the case of any torensie unit located more than l00 miles [mm the Virgin Islands The mutt shall weigh the evidenee and it the court finds that such person has regained his eapaeity for judgment discretion and eontrol oi the conduct oi his affairs and social relations and will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others the court shall order sueh person discharged trom further eontinement in said forensic unit It the court does not so find the court shall order sueh person returned to said forensic, unit Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) (emphasis added) People (#1th Virgin Island“ JamalO Joseph 9X 19 CR 01 | Memorandum Opinion 2021 V1 SUPER 23? illness ) (citing Durant 49 VI at 375 n 9) Thus the Court finds Title 5 V IC § 3637(b) applicable in this instance B Title 19 V I C § 1201 (II 18 Title 19 V I C § 1201 is titled Discharge of Patients Title 19 V I C § 1201(c) provides that [a)ny patient held on order of a court having criminal jurisdiction in any action or proceeding arising out of a criminal offense may be discharged only by order of the district court Titie 19 V I C § 1201(c) In this instance Title 19 V l C § 1201(c) is not applicable because it provides the Court with the authority to discharge not the authority to commit See People of the Virgin Islands i Pmrzlla 58 VI 148 163 (Super Ct May 28 2013) ( The Court found that section [1201] only provides the Court with the authority to release rather than commit an individual ) (quoting People of the Virgin Islands t Richardson 52 VI 211 216 (Super Ct Dec 23 2009)) C Title 19 V I C § 1202 ‘11 19 Title 19 V I C § 1202 is titled Procedure regarding mentally ill prisoneis and provides that [wlhen a prisoner eligible for discharge from the penitentiary or during his term of incarceiation is alleged by the Commissioner of Public Safety 10 be mentally ill and it shall be adjudged in accordance with the provisions of this chapter by the district court that such prisoner is mentally ill he shall be conveyed to the mental hospital by the Commissioner of Public Safety or under his direction In this instance Title 19 V I C § 1202 is not applicable because Defendant is not a prisoner that have been adjudged to be mentally ill whi1e serving his sentence More specifically Defendant is a detainee currentiy held in pre trial detention and found not competent to stand trial before trial Defendant has not been tried and is not currently serving his term of incarceiation Peuple q; the Virgin Island“ Jamal 0 Joseph SX [9 CR 0] I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2:5? Page 15 0t I7 D Title 19 V I C § 723 ‘11 20 Title 19 V IC § 723 is titled Involuntary commitment of mentally disturbed alcoholic and drug dependent persons and allows spouse 01 guardian a relative the certifying physician behavioral health professional or the Administrator in charge of any approved public treatment facility to petition a court for the involuntary commitment of a peison t0 the custody of the Department of Health Title 19 V I C §723(a) Title 19 V I C § 723 requires the petition to allege that the person is mentally disturbed or an alcoholic or drug dependent person who habitually lacks self control due to his disturbed condition or to the use of alcoholic beverages or drugs‘ and that he (1) has threatened attempted 0r inflicted physical harm on himself or another and that unless committed is likely to inflict physical harm on another or (2) is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs or in need of heIp and treatment and the court must find that the grounds for involuntary commitment have been established by clear and convincing proof before committing the person to the Department of Health Title 19 V I C § 723(a)&(d) A person committed under this section shall remain in the custody of the Department of Health for treatment for either a time certain established by the court or for an indefinite period in which latter case the person s commitment shall be subjected to close periodic judicial scrutiny designed to protect said person from prolonged and unnecessary commitment Title 19 V I C § 723(e) While Title 19 V IC § 723 does not specifically address a person in Defendant s situation it may arguably be applicable in this instance However regardless of whether Title 19 V IC § 723 is applicable the Court notes that Title 19 V IC § 723 does not provide the Court with the authority to sua sponte ordei the involuntary commitment of Defendant Title 19 V I C § 723 requires one of the enumerated individuals to petition the Court before Defendant may be involuntary committed People cht/ie Virgin Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph 9X 19 CR Oll Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 1%,? CONCLUSION (H 21 Based on the foregoing the Court finds Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) applicable in this instance Title 19 V I C § 120i and Title 19 V I C § I202 not applicable in this instance and Title 19 V I C § 723 does not provide the Court with the authority to ma sponre order the involuntary commitment of Defendant As such the Court will order Defendant to be confined to a forensm unit until he is competent to stand trial The Court will further order the superintendent or head of the forensic unit to provide annual report to the Court addressing the following (i) whether Defendant has regained his capacity for judgment discretion and control of the conduct of his affairs and social relations (2) whether in the opinion of the superintendent or head such person will in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others and (3) whether in the opinion of the superintendent or head the person is entitled to discharge from the forensic unit and such reports shall be filed with the Court with a copy thereof served on Virgin Islands Department of Justice Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) If no forensic unit exists in the Territory the Defendant shall remain in the custody of the Bureau of Corrections to be treated by the appropriate physicians until the necessary arrangements to transfer the Defendant to a forensic unit outside of the territory Title 5 V I C § 3637(a) Thereafter pursuant to Rule 12 2(c) of Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure upon the motion of the prosecutor or upon the Court s own initiative the Court may order the Defendant to submit to one or more mental examinations by a psychiatrist or other expert designated for this purpose in the order of the court to determine if Defendant has regained his competency to stand trial V I R Crim P 12 2(c) Defendant may only be discharged by order of the Court Title 19 V IC § 1201(c) ( Any patient held on order of a court having criminal jurisdiction in any action or proceeding arising out of a criminal offense may be discharged only People offhe Virgin Islandm Jamal 0 Joseph 9X l9 CR 01 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER (2’22? Fag; l7 0! 17 by order of the di§tliCt court ) An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith DONE this (9% day of February 2021 7 / / / HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Presiding Judge of the Superior Court  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX Case No SX 19 CV 011 Charges 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Murder First Degree 14 V I C § 922(a)(2) Murder First Degree PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 14 V I C § 2253(a) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm During the PLAINTIFF, Commission of a Crime of Violence v 14 V I C § 295(1) and 16 V I C §91(b)(l&2) Assault First Degree/Domestic Violence JAMAL JOSEPH 14 V I C §2256(a) Possession or Sale of Ammunition DEFENDANT 14 V I C § 297(2) and 16 V I C § 91(b)(1&2) Assault Third Degree/Domestic Violence 23 V I C § 479(d) Discharging or Aiming Firearms CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER 2?)? Appearances Eric Chancellor, Esq Department of Justice Christlansted, U S Virgin Islands For Plamtlfi’ Yolan Brow Ross, Esq Office of the Territorial Public Defender ngshill U S Virgin Islands For Defendant ORDER WILLOCKS, Presiding Judge In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously herewith, it IS hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall be confined to a forensic unit until he is competent to stand trial If no forensic unit exists in the Territory, Defendant shall remain in the custody of the People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR 011 Order 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Bureau of Corrections to be treated by the appropriate physicians until the necessary arrangements to transfer the defendant to a forensic unit outside of the Territory, but for no more than sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall only be discharged by order of the Court It is further ORDERED that the superintendent or head of the forensic unit shall provide annual report to the Court addressing the following (1) whether Defendant has regalned his capacity for judgment, discretion and control of the conduct of his affairs and social relations, (2) whether, in the opinion of the superintendent or head, such person wiil in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others and (3) whether in the opinion of the superintendent or head, the person is entitled to discharge from the forensic unit Such reports shail be filed with the Court between the period of January 13‘ through January 3 15‘ of each year, commencing in 2022, with a copy thereof served contemporaneously on Virgin Islands Department of Justice It is further ORDERED that a status conference is scheduled to take place in person on March 26, 2021 at 9 00 a m in Courtroom 206 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to submit Dr Evadne Sang’s evaluation report under seal is DENIED ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to file motion for competency hearing under seal is DENIED DONE and so ORDERED this (9‘ ”( 3‘“ day of February 2021 // %WWM HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Presiding Judge of the Superior Court