Defendant Withholds Consent Pending Constitutional Challenge — Evaluation Aborted
---
🔹 Verbatim Excerpt: Letter from Dr. Phani M. Tumu (May 1, 2024)
> “Pursuant to your Court Order dated 3/22/24 under Section 730 of the Evidence Code and Section 1368 of the Penal Code, I was appointed to evaluate the defendant Michael Taylor.
I attempted to evaluate Mr. Taylor but he declined my request, stating in an email dated 3/31/24 that 'before we proceed, I will need to challenge the validity of the initial evaluation and remedy potential violations of my constitutional rights to due process that have been disregarded since preliminary... I will follow-up with more information as soon as I have it. Thank you for understanding.'
He has since sent numerous emails to various individuals, including myself, but has not contacted me about an interview.
As such, I was not able to interview him and therefore have not been able to produce a report.”
—
🔹 Legal Analysis
This letter serves as official documentation that the defendant did not submit to a subsequent court-ordered PC 730 evaluation due to a pending challenge to the lawfulness of prior proceedings, specifically regarding the unauthorized use of a confidential diversion report by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo (Exhibit B-2).
Dr. Tumu’s letter confirms three critical legal facts:
1. No New Evaluation Was Conducted
No interview occurred.
No psychiatric opinion was rendered.
No report was submitted to the court.
2. Defendant Clearly Withheld Consent
The defendant made an express, written objection based on constitutional concerns tied to prior procedural violations.
The objection was not evasive or incoherent — it was articulated in legal terms and grounded in due process principles.
3. Court-Appointed Expert Acknowledged the Objection
Dr. Tumu not only documents the refusal but includes the defendant’s legal rationale.
This amounts to notice to the court of a standing due process objection that precedes any new mental health determination.
---
🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)
Let’s be clear: The court ordered a new doctor to evaluate the defendant’s mental state.
But the defendant said no — not because he refused mental health care, but because he wanted the court to fix a previous violation first.
Think of it like this: If a doctor shows up with fake paperwork and gives you the wrong diagnosis, you’re going to want that mistake fixed before another doctor takes over. That’s exactly what happened here.
And rather than ignoring the objection or calling it nonsense, the doctor respected the boundary and informed the court that he couldn’t move forward. He didn’t try to force it. He didn’t accuse the defendant of being uncooperative. He acknowledged a legal barrier that hadn’t been resolved.
This isn’t obstruction. This is basic due process.
---
🔹 Implication for the Dossier
Exhibit B-5 affirms that the defendant actively withheld consent for further psychiatric evaluation until the legal foundation for the initial PC 730 evaluation (Exhibit B-2) was addressed. It also places the court on notice that any continued attempt to prosecute without correcting the record would constitute knowing misconduct.
This exhibit proves that the competency process had fully collapsed — not due to obstruction or avoidance by the defendant, but due to the court’s refusal to cure its own constitutional errors. The defendant's objection is now part of the evidentiary record — documented, legal, and unavoidable.
Comments
Post a Comment