If Someone is SMI, Does that Make Him Incompetent in Arizona?

21March
2019

Serious mental illness (SMI) is a term used people who have certain mental health diagnoses in Arizona. They struggle to keep control of their lives because of the condition.

The fact a defendant is diagnosed with SMI does not automatically mean he will be ruled incompetent in a criminal proceeding. His attorney may have grounds to make the case if his condition is severe enough.

Why an SMI may not equate to incompetence in Arizona

Does an SMI mean incompetence in Arizona?

During a criminal proceeding in Arizona, the defense attorney may ask for a Rule 11 evaluation of his client when SMI is an issue. Under Rule 11, known as the competency rule, the defendant has the right to a full mental examination and hearing if reasonable grounds exist for it.

Rule 11 hearings usually take place when a defendant is believed to be mentally incompetent. Substantial evidence of mental incompetence is required by medical professionals.

A hearing takes place when reasonable grounds exist to suggest the defendant is not able to understand the nature of the criminal proceeding against him or to assist in his or her defense.

This is not always synonymous with serious mental illness. Some people who are SMI are capable of understanding the criminal proceedings and can give coherent help and advice to their legal representatives. Some serious mental illnesses involve mood swings and periods of incapacity as well as lucid periods.

Rule 11 was enacted to make sure the defendant has the mental ability to understand what is going on around him. Criminal trials are adversarial and can disadvantage people who are not aware of what’s happening.

Once a motion has been entered under Rule 11, the court will determine whether reasonable grounds exist to examine the defendant for competency. The court requires “sufficient evidence” to determine if reasonable grounds exist for a competency hearing. The court often appoints an expert to conduct a preliminary examination.

The Crisis Response Network characterizes a “serious mental illness” as a condition that leaves sufferers unable to look after themselves. They may attempt suicide or have suicidal thoughts due to the condition. Acts of self-harm are an indicator of SMI. They may resort to drug abuse.

Although some people who are ruled incompetent in Arizona may suffer from these behaviors, being SMI does not necessarily mean you are unable to understand what’s going on in the courtroom.

Competency proceedings are complicated and difficult for family members. If your family member has been arrested and is suffering from a mental health condition, please call our Phoenix defense attorney as soon as possible at (602) 340-1999.

 

 

 

Posted in Mental Health, Mental Health Defenses | Tagged |

Why Defendants Pleading Insanity Must Disclose Examination Results in Arizona

15March
2019

Defendants who plead insanity in Arizona face numerous obstacles. Some of the issues they face infringe on the Fifth Amendment rights of the accused. A recent court ruling found defendants pleading insanity must disclose examination results in Arizona.

The ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2017 found defendants who voluntarily seek mental health examinations after filing an insanity defense must provide the results of the examination to the prosecution in their case.

The ruling raised concerns that the defendants’ rights against self-incrimination could be violated.

Examination results must be revealed in an  Arizona insanity ase

A defendant claiming insanity in Arizona must disclose examination results

Since the ruling, defendants in criminal cases have had to give prosecutors any statements relating to the charges made during the mental health examination.

The justices said forcing a defendant in a criminal case to provide results of a mental health examination would not be self-incriminating. They said the fact the insanity defense was used meant they would have waived their protection against self-incrimination.

The court ruled prosecutors can only use the evidence from examinations to refute insanity claims rather than to prove guilt in these cases.

Voluntary mental health examinations are distinct from those ordered by the court.

The 2017 case concerned Josh Rasmussen who was indicted for armed robbery and felony murder. His lawyer consulted with several mental health experts about a possible insanity defense. The defense listed insanity, or guilty except insane, as a defense in the case.

Rasmussen retained a psychologist to support his insanity defense. The state and Rasmussen agreed to an examination by a joint expert. Reports were prepared by both experts. A legal dispute ensured when the state requested copies of both reports compiled by experts. Rasmussen’s lawyers produced copies but redacted Rasmussen’s statements.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution says no defendant will be compelled to be a witness against himself. The amendment states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

At the Garcia Law Firm, we vigorously defend the rights of mentally ill people in the criminal justice system. We will answer your questions about mental health examination results in Arizona Call us for a consultation at (602) 340-1999.

 

Posted in Mental Health Defenses | Tagged |

Can a Mentally Ill Person be Charged with the Death Penalty?

13March
2019

The question of whether a mentally ill person can be charged with the death penalty has been debated at length by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s a difficult question because there is a lack of consensus about the definition of mental illness. The issue is also becoming moot in Arizona where a prisoner has not been executed for over four years, even though more than 100 people languish on Death Row.

The Death Penalty Information Center points out mental illness can be described in a variety of ways. The website notes the definition in the American Heritage Dictionary of mental illness as a range of conditions “characterized by impairment of an individual’s normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.”

Can mentally ill people receive the death penalty

The death penalty and mental illness

The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the case of mentally ill defendants using the narrower definition of “intellectual disability” which impacts intellectual functioning such as problem-solving, learning, and judgment as well as adaptive functioning impacting independent living, and norms like communication. The condition was previously referred to as “mental retardation.”

In the 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded the execution of people with mental retardation is “cruel and unusual punishments” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The case established protection for people with intellectual disabilities. The justices cited disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and impulse control.

The court said people with intellectual disabilities “do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.” The justices said people with an intellectual disability were not able to comprehend the death penalty.

The Atkins decision offered less protection than mental health advocates hoped. Prosecutors argued defendants were not intellectually disabled and their real issue was mental illness manifesting as a personality disorder.

States continued to execute people with mental illnesses. The Death Penalty Information Center noted Arizona executed Robert Moorman in 2012. His attorneys argued he was mentally disabled and was sexually abused into his adulthood. Prosecutors argued Moorman’s mental capacity when he committed murder was slightly above the legal threshold for mental impairment. Moorman killed and dismembered his adoptive mother.

Notwithstanding the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, mentally ill people are sentenced to death across the United States.

However, the use of the death penalty has stalled in Arizona, raising questions whether it will be used again.

According to a recent report on ABC15, the cost of executions and a shortage of drugs means it’s questionable whether the death penalty will be resumed in the state.

The news report noted a discussion on the death penalty last year. Assistant Federal Public Defender Dale Baich said the state of the death penalty in Arizona is “broken.”

The discussion was raised in an Arizona courtroom during the trial of a defendant accused of the sexual assault and killing of 8-year-old Isabella Grogan-Canella.

Although prosecutors initially wanted the death penalty during the trial of Justin James Rector, the request was withdrawn. They concluded there was no reasonable likelihood of Rector being executed give the “current state of affairs surrounding persons sentenced to death.” Rector received two mental health evaluations.

Like many other states, Arizona has lacked the drugs to perform execution by lethal injection.

The last time a death row prisoner was executed was in 2014 when Joseph Wood was put to death at the Florence State Prison.

Wood was injected with lethal injection drugs but took almost two hours to die. The execution shocked the nation.

By the time Wood finally succumbed after nearly two hours, he had been injected with 750mg each of hydromorphone and midazolam –15 times the amounts stipulated in Arizona’s execution protocol.

Baich said the lack of drugs was one reason why no executions have been carried out for four years. Another is the soaring cost of the death penalty.

In Arizona, county prosecutors hold the power over whether to seek the death penalty. Many are no longer using it.

Maricopa County Prosecutor Bill Montgomery said in 2018 the county had its lowest level of pending capital cases in two decades. Death penalty cases are down in also down in Pima County.

The ABC research found prosecutors are withdrawing notices to seek capital punishment because of the problems in the system as in the Rector case.

The pattern in Arizona reflects the rest of the nation. Death sentences peaked in the 1990s and have fallen steadily ever since. Some states like Maryland abolished capital punishment entirely. Other use it less frequently.  The Death Penalty Information Center noted historic lows in the use of the death penalty in many states in 2018.

At the Garcia Law Firm, we represent mentally ill defendants who have been charged with serious crimes like murders as well as lesser offenses. Please call us today if you or a family member has been charged with a crime at (602) 340-1999.

Posted in Arizona Laws, Mental Health Defenses | Tagged |

Can a Mental Health Attorney Help Me In Family Court?

12March
2019

If you have been involved in a criminal case, you might need help from a mental health attorney. This is especially true during cases that are held at Mental Health Court. But what about Family Court? Yes, a mental health attorney can offer legal advice and representation on cases in Family Court.

What is a Mental Health Attorney?

A mental health attorney is an attorney that specializes in mental health law and represents those with a wide range of mental illnesses to provide them with a fair case and punishment.

What is Family Court?

Family Court is defined as a court that decides on certain matters in relation to family law. This can include divorce and custody battles as well we issues within the family such as abuse.

Circumstances where a Mental Health Attorney is Beneficial

Divorce is a difficult thing to go through and it can be even more difficult if you suffer from a mental illness. One issue that comes up during a divorce is who gets what when it comes to finances. If you are going through a divorce, but have a mental illness in which you are unable to work, you may receive spousal maintenance. A mental health attorney will be needed to prove to Family Court that you do suffer from a mental illness where you are unable to provide financially for yourself.

A child custody battle is also a very difficult process that can be even more difficult for those with a mental illness. You will need the help of a mental illness attorney to prove that you are capable of taking care of your children. Of course, mental illness can impact a parent’s ability to raise their children, which could be used against you during a custody battle. A mental health attorney will provide a strong case with character testimony and doctor notes to prove that you are self-sufficient and able to provide for your children.

Garcia Law

Garcia Law offers over 25 years of experience in a wide range of legal issues from felonies to misdemeanors. The legal team at Garcia Law always takes the time to listen to your concerns and fight for your constitutional rights. The goal is for every mentally ill client to receive fair punishment and treatment. Just because you have a mental illness, doesn’t mean you should be silenced. Garcia Law has experience with those suffering from mental disorders such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, psychotic disorders and personality disorders. We understand that you are not in full control of your mental facilities and that there are always certain circumstances surrounding odd behavior, where a fair punishment is needed.

Posted in Mental Health, Mental Health Defenses |

Why Arizona’s Insanity Defense is One of the Toughest to Prove in the Nation

7March
2019

Arizona’s insanity defense is one of the toughest to prove in the United States. The harshness of the defense provoked legal challenges in past years. Opponents claimed it failed to meet basic standards of fairness.

The obstacles associated with the defense were challenged in 2006 in the case of Clark v. Arizona. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Eric Clark shot a police officer dead during a traffic stop. Clark was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He believed aliens took over his town, according to expert witnesses.

Challenges in Arizona's insanity defense

Arizona’s insanity defense is tough to prove

Clark wanted to use this evidence to prove that he was insane. His attorneys claimed he could not form the criminal intent that prosecutors required to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial judge ruled Clark could not use the expert testimony. He said the law did not permit the defendant to show he could not form the necessary criminal intent. The court found Clark failed to prove the insanity defense known as the Guilty Except Insane (GEI) defense in Arizona. Clark was convicted to 25 years to life in prison.

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant has a Fourteenth Amendment due process right, aside from his insanity plea, to present expert evidence to counter to prosecution’s evidence of Clark’s criminal intent.

The New York Times pointed out the nation’s highest court never ruled that the Constitution requires a state to permit an explicit insanity defense. The insanity defense was abolished by four states – Utah, Kansas, Idaho, and Montana.

However, these states still permitted a defendant to present evidence of his or her diminished mental capacity by using experts to challenge evidence of criminal intent.

Arizona bars the use of this evidence. Defendants who rely on insanity defenses can request a Guilty Except Insane verdict. However, the defendant must demonstrate insanity under a statutory rule that’s narrower than that of most states.

The insanity defense dates back to England in the 16th Century. It was codified in the 19th century with the development of the M’Naghten Rule.

The court in the case decided a “disease of the mind” caused the accused to fail to realize the difference between right and wrong. There are other legal tests such as Durham Rule that found a defendant who is “not guilty by reason of insanity” cannot be convicted of crimes committed as a result of certain mental conditions because willful intent is required. The rule is only used in New Hampshire.

It is difficult but not impossible to bring the Guilty Except Insane defense in Arizona. You should hire a Phoenix-area attorney who is experienced in these cases. Please call us today at (602) 340-1999.

 

Posted in Arizona Laws, Mental Health, Mental Health Defenses | Tagged |

What are Telltale Signs of Mental Health Symptoms in Defendants?

4March
2019

Mental illnesses are not always obvious to outsiders. On occasions, offenders are not aware they are suffering from a mental health disorder. Family members are often oblivious and the criminal justice system fails to recognize the signs.

At the Garcia Law Firm, we have a long record in helping people with mental illnesses after their arrest. We are familiar with the symptoms these disorders and will vigorously defend the rights of those who do not have full control of their mental faculties in the Arizona courts.

It’s not always easy to recognize the signs of mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association points out small changes or a feeling that something is not right can be indicators of mental illness.

Understanding Mental health symptoms in defendants

Mental health symptoms in defendants are often complex

The association points to the following telltale signs of mental health symptoms in defendants that can point to a more serious issue.

If you or a family member identify any of the following signs, you should contact an experienced mental health professional.

Changes in mood. Dramatic mood swings, lows, and highs, shifts in emotions or sudden and acute feelings of depression can be signs of mental illness.

Changes in appetite and sleep. Sudden changes in appetite or the onset of insomnia or other sleeping problems can point to underlying mental health issues.

Decreases in performance. Sudden drops in functioning whether performance at work, at school or on the sports field can be indicators of the onset of mental health problems.

Withdrawal. Mental health problems can be associated with a withdrawal from social events and activities or an unwillingness to engage with other people.

Increased sensitivity. The onset of a mental health disorder often causes increased sensitivity to sounds, smells, sight, or touch. People with a mental health condition may seek to avoid over-stimulation.

Loss of interest. Apathy is a common symptom of psychological problems.

Cognitive problems. Issues with memory, concentration or logical thought are often associated with mental health disorders.

Fear and nervousness. People with mental illness often feel nervous and anxious and fear everyday situations.

Feeling disconnected. A sense of unreality or being unconnected with what is going on around you is associated with many conditions.

Illogical thoughts. People who suffer from mental illnesses may not think logically. They have exaggerated feelings about their own abilities. People who have been arrested may not be able to appreciate the full seriousness of their predicament.

Unusual behavior. Mental disorders can cause odd and unusual behavior if they are not properly treated. Juries may be unsympathetic to this kind of behavior if they are not aware of a defendant’s condition.

Many symptoms of a mental disorder begin at an early age. About 50 percent of mental disorders become apparent by the age of 14, according to the American Psychiatric Association. The warning signs are apparent to three-quarters of sufferers by the age of 24.

Some people suffer mental disorders later in life after a traumatic brain injury.

It’s vital that your condition is diagnosed if you are dealt with in the criminal justice system. If you suspect your loved one has a mental health disorder, call us today. Our attorney is well versed in recognizing mental health symptoms in defendants. While you should contact a qualified medical professional as soon as possible if you recognize warning signs, call us at (602) 340-1999 to defend your mentally ill family member in the Arizona justice system.

Posted in Mental Health Defenses, Rule 11 | Tagged |

How to Prove My Mental Illness

7February
2019

Do you suffer from a mental illness and committed a crime? With the help of a defense attorney, you can plead guilty except insane in the state of Arizona. However, how do you prove your mental illness in court?

What Types of Mental Illness are Recognized?

A diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or any axis 1 disorders, which include PTSD and depression is required to plead guilty except insane. You have the ability to plead guilty except insane for a variety of crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felony charges such as arson, robbery and assault. With the help of a criminal defense attorney that specializes in mental illness, you could get charges dropped, a reduced sentenced or an alternatives to jail like a mental health hospital or therapy.

Proving Mental Illness

Different defense strategies are used by Garcia Law, but their main focus is always on you and proving your mental illness. To do this, you must see a licensed psychiatrist or mental health expert to conduct tests and evaluations. Their findings will be presented in court along with all of your medical records. Any documents that show you have undergone treatment like therapy or medications for a mental illness will help your case. The most important aspect of proving your mental illness is the diagnosis from an experienced mental health expert. You may have to see an expert that is chosen by the courts, but as long as you willingly undergo all of the needed evaluations, you should be able to successfully prove your mental illness.

Garcia Law

With more than 25 years of experience, Garcia Law offers seasoned professionals that fully communicate with their clients. They know their clients’ rights and options, always making them feel like they are on their side. From a wide range of legal issues from felonies to misdemeanors, Garcia Law has the proper education and knowledge to fight for you. Just because you have a mental illness, doesn’t mean you should be silenced. Garcia Law will fight to ensure that you receive a fair case and punishment.

Posted in Mental Health Defenses |

What Does Guilty Except Insane Mean in Arizona?

4February
2019

Have you been charged with a crime and looking to plead guilty except insane? Before entering in your plea, there are things to know. A mentally ill defense requires strong proof that at the time of the criminal act, the mental disorder was so severe, that you didn’t fully understand that the criminal act was wrong.

In the state of Arizona, a mentally ill plea is known as guilty except insane. When entering this plea, you must undergo a guilty except insane evaluation by a psychologist who will then give a diagnosis to the court. A credible doctor must be used and must bring forth evidence to prove any of their findings. Any case that contains a guilty except insane plea is a difficult case, but an experienced mental health attorney has the skills and knowledge to defend the mentally ill and fight for fair punishment and treatment.

Keep in mind that the insanity defense in Arizona must not result from intoxication, psychosexual disorders, impulse control disorder, momentary or temporary disorders along with acts of anger, jealousy, or rage. There must be clear and convincing evidence that the court determines appropriate that proves you were suffering from a mental disease at the time. In the end, this will help get you a much more fair sentence.

However, cases that involve threats, actual serious harm, or death will be handled a little differently. If the court finds that there is a reasonable basis for guilty except insane, you must undergo a mental health expert evaluation or be placed in a mental health facility for 30 days. You will usually end up serving the same amount of time you would in jail, only you will be serving time in a mental health facility to receive treatment. If the case does NOT involve threats, actual serious harm, or death, if you have been found guilty except insane, you will spend 75 days in a state institution and then have a hearing to either be released or ordered to serve more time in the institution.

An experienced litigator should be used to guide you through the process of entering the plea of guilty except insane as it is not an easy case to be involved in. The legal team at Garcia Law always takes the time to listen to your concerns and fight for your constitutional rights. The goal is for every mentally ill client to receive fair punishment and treatment.

 

Posted in Mental Health Defenses |

Can a Mentally Ill Person be Held by Police Without Arrest?

1February
2019

Typically, a mentally ill defendant who is arrested in Arizona is taken into custody by the police, processed into jail, and then promptly charged with a crime before a judge. The police cannot hold a mentally ill person indefinitely without arrest.

However, Arizona law allows the authorities to hold a mentally ill person against his or her will for evaluation and treatment in certain limited instances. This process is known as “court-ordered evaluation and treatment.”

Why mentally ill defendants are held by police without arrest

Mentally ill people being held by police without arrest

In Arizona, the court can order a mentally ill person to undergo mental health treatment if they are found to be:

  • A danger to themselves;
  • A risk to others;
  • Unable to take care of their basic physical needs;
  • Persistently or acutely disabled, meaning they may suffer severe physical or mental harm that impairs their judgment.

Before the court orders a mentally ill person to undergo involuntary evaluation or treatment, he or she must be offered voluntary evaluation or treatment.

When a mentally ill defendant is not ordered to receive court-ordered evaluation or treatment, he or she will be treated in the same way as any other defendant. People accused of a crime are formally charged at an arraignment hearing. They are required to enter a plea. A trial date is set. Defendants will remain in jail until their trial unless they make bail.

Defendants are not always aware of their rights and how long they can be held without being charged. There may be uncertainty before you are formally charged. The authorities have a certain time window to charge you. If no charges are forthcoming, you must be released from custody. In Arizona, there is a time limit of 48 hours after an initial arrest before charges are brought.

If the authorities fail to bring charges during the two-day window, the defendant must be released from custody and should not face further legal prosecution. There may still be issues relating to your arrest record and mugshot being in the public domain. A criminal defense attorney can advise you of your rights in this regard.

When a suspect is arrested on a felony charge and placed in jail, the initial hearing should be held within 24 hours. The judge informs the defendant of the charges. The defendant is informed of his rights, an attorney is appointed if appropriate and release conditions are set.

The County Attorney’s Office has 48 hours from the beginning of the business day after the first court appearance to file formal charges with the court. In some cases, prosecutors will return the police report to the local police department for further investigation.

What Are the Reasons for Hold Limits in Arizona?

Hold limits are vital to the fair administration of justice of defendants with mental illnesses and others. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of defendants to a speedy public trial and the right to know the nature of the evidence against them. It also guarantees the rights to a lawyer.

Without limits on how long people can be held, defendants could be incarcerated indefinitely. Law enforcement officers could distort facts and unfairly find ways to charge you with further offenses.

 

Defendants held in jail should be careful about what they do or say. They should follow the commands of law enforcement officers but be careful not to incriminate themselves.

 

It’s important to know you have not been formally charged with a crime until you have been arraigned You should contact your lawyer as soon as possible to ensure your rights are not being violated.

Defendants with mental health issues who are held in Arizona face particular challenges. This is also a difficult time for family members. It’s important to hire a defense attorney with a long track record of helping mentally ill defendants.

Posted in Mental Health, Mental Health Defenses | Tagged |

Restoration to Competency Cases Remain Controversial in Arizona

25January
2019

Restoration to Competency, or RTC, is a process in which a judge decides whether a person with mental disabilities is fit to face trial.

The deliberations associated with restoration to competency help the courts make a crucial decision.   When a defendant is deemed competent, he or she can face incarceration and even the death penalty. However, if a judge finds competency cannot be restored, the courts must dismiss the charges. This does not mean the defendant will be released. The defendant may still be committed to an institution via a civil-court process.

What is Restoration to competency in Arizona

Restoration to competency in Arizona

A report in Arizona Republic  described how the restoration process is limited in certain places like Maricopa County.

A study of a year’s results suggested rather than finding if a defendant is fit to stand trial, RTC appears to be a way of advancing mentally ill people through the court process.

The report found many of the defendants subjected to the restoration to competency process were previously arrested on minor crimes or drug possession charges. In some cases, minor issues like traffic stops ended up in altercations with police officers leading to enhanced charges.

Mental health professionals evaluated the defendants before they were ruled incompetent by a judge and referred to the RTC program. They were then assessed and declared restored again by mental-health professionals.

The report pointed out the judges often agreed with the mental health professionals. The defendants wound up in jail or prison.

The report noted serious issues when defendants were charged with violent crimes like murders. They ended up in legal battles that can last for years, delaying justice for both defendants and victims.

Restoration to competency is traced to the Dusky decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1960. Dusky, a schizophrenic, was charged with kidnapping and rape. Despite his condition, a court found him competent to stand trial and was convicted. He argued his conviction should be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial.

The justices allowed Dusky a retrial. They stated a defendant must be able to consult with his lawyer rationally and have an understanding of the proceedings he is subjected to. The justices ruled a brief mental status exam was not sufficient.

A report in AZCentral cited issues with restoration to competency in Maricopa County.

It described the case of Rodney Aviles who beat his 7-year-old niece and mother to death in Phoenix in 1999. The courts sent Aviles to Arizona State Hospital after he was ruled incompetent to stand trial. Doctors decided that he was no longer a threat to himself and or other people and told the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that he would be released.

Aviles’ family were worried about his welfare but they did not want him to be released. The report stated they learned about the pending release from an Arizona Republic reporter. The county attorney moved to re-indict Aviles for murder. Before he was eventually committed to the state hospital, he was found incompetent and restored and re-indicted two more times, according to the report.

The Republic investigation found many areas of concern about the process and suggested some clinicians work too closely with prosecutors to get accused people with mental health issues to stand trial.

At the Garcia Law Firm, we specialize in representing mentally ill defendants. The last thing you want is to be bounced around the system for years. Please contact us at (602) 340-1999.

 

Posted in Mental Health, Mental Health Defenses | Tagged |