::::::::
In the matter of Kathleen Jacobson before the First Judicial Court, I have personally known her the over the last few months. She is a member of the Fort Simpson Band, a Native American tribe in the Northwest.
During that time, I have found her in angry or frustrating moments, largely arising from the reaction she has experienced in what seems to be a wayward process of the First Judicial Court of New Mexico.
Most recently (Jan. 5) the Court issued a "competency evaluation" upon her person .
It is an affront to due process to "order a competency Evaluation'. It is clearly retaliatory as she filed a Supreme court case to the stay and review those proceedings that had previously transpired. What practically happens in those cases is that the "person subject to evaluation is picked up upon a Sherriff's warrant and placed in the jail to await a psychiatric examination. The whole process could and in New Mexico does take months.
The Court's order of an evaluation of Ms. Jacobson negates the recognition that the proceedings have failed to be prosecuted with the constitutional moorings of due process. The introduction of competency proceedings continues a pattern of failure. There was evidence that the "victim' did not live with the accused, as is part of the requirement to charge as a "battery of a household member".
The public defender has displayed no effort to an apt defense. The introduction of those evidences were by the defendant herself, to promote a dismissal to "misdemeanor charge" which is unfounded. The process has not rested upon "facts' but argumentative statements which obliterate the essences of a trial. It imposes an outcome in which a mere accusation and charge is tantamount to either being guilty or
A proper competency evaluation rests upon two factors:
A. the accused understands the charges and the originating facts,
B). the accused has an understanding of the court proceedings-- the role of the judge, prosecutor , etc. and ably assist in the defense.
The process as taken , at this time and place in the proceedings , clearly attempts to "continue prosecution, despite evidences, time and particulars." It attempts to define the character so to contour an outcome which serves cover the numerous past events in prosecuting.
As extended, it is a 'witch-hunt device", ordered upon absent a probable cause--including a statement such as " she was howling at the moon" 'ranting' and raving in high decibel voice , and/ or incoherently."
There is no evidence of such a probable cause. She maintains the defense that that there was an incident, and it led to a charge. She is aware of the charges .She has unequivocally expresses numerous statements that reflect a process of prosecutorial abuse, with default imposed defense. Excepting her own efforts to supply witness statements and character references, the defense has simply folded, replacing another figurehead as a stead for "effective legal assistance".
That process of prosecutorial abuse is continued in now attempting to construct the character upon the competency issues. One might say, that the Court is "doing her a favor' by providing a basis of guilt, but not competent. It does not.
It promotes a cloud. A lethal contamination to the very process of due process rights-- which are balances of effective legal assistance, in a courtroom and atmosphere free of prejudices and by procedural processes which are not bent to apply but naturally fall.
A person who is "incompetent' displays such character as to commonly known as "lucid, crazy and lulu", and the Court's rationale and requirement for the order of psychological examination are based upon observed behavior which should be described in the order which is are reasoned. The design of the US eighth Amendment is toward the preserve of the rights of the individual. The procedure is not a device which can be used in lieu of a trial.
One might say that a competent person has no reason to fear such processes as an psychological examination. The State would not "tactically' slip a procedure that is granted to a State in prosecution toward trial avoidance. Yes, it would. It has.
In the case of Jacobson, it allows , if not initiates a arrest process which would be bound to destabilize her homelife and increase undue stress. She has had a stable home, regularly concerned in the upbringing of her daughter, now aged 14. She has family counseling and regular medical care. She is a trained musician and has attempted to return to that peace of the songs of life in practice and performance.
A Competency evaluation breaches the very fundamental of trial rights. It is an unfair use of the statutes, and as repeated totally abridges effective trial rights and the rights to recover from "undue harassment, prosecutorial, or ineffective counsel".
A person who competent supposedly would nothing to fear from such a process as is in the statutes--and whereby the adjudication is before a jury, and with evidences, including an origination event and appropriate disclaimers. New Mexico seemingly has a pattern to its provision. It doesn't give a jury-- or give demand, though its constitution requires so.
It is a devise when 'New Mexico knows he is guity..and he's crazy.
But in New Mexico, it is also devise often when accused is attempts "pro se" documents upon prolonged prosecution without conclusion. It is a prolonged, not because of guilt or innocence ,but because the prosecution after all the time and all the evidence cannot come up with a motion to dismiss. Rather it would continue to do the opposite of required trial rights.
It furthers a "notice" upon a public defender, who in no way, attempts to contact the accused. The use of a public defender system as a dis-connect of constructive receipt. In absence of notice to the accused him or herself is not a bonafide manner. The substitution of a "public defender" in lieu of actually communicating and noticing the client simply merit "effective legal assistance". In the ideals of law, the purpose of the public defender is to provide adequate and effective legal assistance. In New Mexico it has been turned into a system where the defense for the innocence is given up in the prosecution against the guilty majority.
Facts of time are upon people . Our construct of due process rights is not to focus upon an insignificant fight two years before as if that is a moment to preserve in the growth of life. The handling of a misdemeanor must take that account . Time moves on. Ms. Jacobson has the right to move on in her thoughts and life.
The case is an abhorrence. An abhorrence that it is prolonged. An abhorrence that the rules of appeal contradict the vitality that time is. Now over 18 months ?. On a misdemeanor ? With its continued threat of "jail time, counseling and further Court review"?
The case should have been long ago dismissed. Medrano, the "victim' has a long history of abuse and violence. He was not a member of the household. He was arrested at the time of the incident on another warrant. She was charged, booked, and presumably would over that matter in a relative short time. It is not the type thing to make one's legacy about.
It should have been dismissed ago. Yet the State, including its public offender system is the opposite. It relies on the upon a process of exclusion of evidence and the "confrontation" clause in the practices of the day to day. It does so beyond the constitutional limits---a fair trial and a jury with effective legal counsel. It does such breaches with such regularity that , it deludes the further constitutional integrity with an "equal justice policy that it is equally bad, therefore equal.
