1
1
1
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, an 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 ls competent supposedly would have 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 device when 'New Mexico knows he is guilty..and he's crazy.
But in New Mexico, it is also devise often used when the accused 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 is a disconnect of constructive receipt. In the ideal 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 defense for the innocent is given up.
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 have been over that matter in a relative short time. It is not something to make one's legacy about.
It should have been dismissed long ago. Yet the State, including its public offender system is the opposite. It relies 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 commits such breaches with such regularity that, it deludes the further constitutional integrity with an "equal justice policy that it is equally bad," therefore equal.
1 | 2
