Competency Trial Day One

[Original Post by DS: 6/6/2011 4:13PM PST]
[Updates: 6/7/2011 06:15AM PST]

The 2pm continuance was extended to 3:30pm.

At 3:30pm trial logistics were discussed. Jury selection will begin tomorrow, Tuesday, June 7, 2011. Jury questions were compiled by the judge. Jurors expressing conflict of interest and jurors with hardships will be dealt with in separate locations.

At 1pm on Wednesday afternoon, voir dire will begin. ayres is required to be present in the courtroom at this point. ayres’ attorney Jonathan McDougall apparently made efforts to point out that ayres is incompetent at this point. (Fine... so wheel the drooling pervert in... let's see him mess his diapers.)

No electronic recording devices of any kind will be allowed in the courtroom.  (As was the case for his criminal trial. Pen and paper seem to confuse the courts these days.)


Discussed during the proceedings was the case Medina vs. California.

This would seem to indicate that McDougall will be pushing for the court to take the position that the  prosecution must show proof positive that the perverted molester is competent to assist in it's own defense, rather than relying on the defense to show that it is incompetent to assist in it's own defense. A subtle, but possibly powerful difference. The "traditional" view on an incompetence defense seems to be that the defense has the burden of the proof; after all, the defense is the one making the claim.

The implication of Medina vs California seems to be that the state has the responsibility not to put an incompetent person on trial. Possibly true. If so, then we need to try EVERY accused person for incompetence. And we should check to see if prison terms and financial hardship related to trial are going to exacerbate an prior, unrelated conditions of the offenders so that we don't burden them further. And if they become depressed or otherwise altered because of the punishment meted out to them, we should take steps to unburden them. And their families should be compensated for the inconvenience caused by a conviction.

Maybe we should just let them off without a trial at all.

Or maybe the offenders and their families should suck it up and take responsibility for the evil that has been done, pleading guilty to ALL charges that they are guilty of, and thereby relieving their victims of further hardship.

I wonder if anyone cares anymore about people getting away with doing grave harm to others. I think people like to hide behind the trappings of a "fair" system so that they don't have to face pain. If only we could make it so that no one was ever found guilty of the wrong they've done, we won't have to look into the eyes of the people they have hurt so grievously.

[Update:6/7/2011: The Mercury News posted a story last night, and this morning, San Mateo Daily Journal has finally published an article. You'll notice that they both mention that the defense has the burden of proof in this trial. They don't mention that Medina vs California was brought up and what the implications might be.]