Exhibit B-7 (8.30.24) [EVALUATION REPORT] Involuntary Medication Order Recommended Solely on Records and Prior Contested Evaluation (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

Exhibit B-7: July 29, 2024 — Dr. Phani M. Tumu, M.D. Involuntary Medication Opinion (Filed August 30, 2024)

Evaluation Without Interview: Involuntary Medication Order Recommended Solely on Records and Prior Contested Evaluation

---

🔹 Verbatim Excerpt: Dr. Phani M. Tumu, M.D. (Filed August 30, 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 was unable to interview Mr. Taylor despite numerous attempts.

As such, I was ordered by the court to provide an opinion whether the defendant would qualify for an involuntary medication order.

I reviewed the following records in preparation of this report:

Felony Complaint, dated 11/22/21;

Penal Code 1368 Evaluation by Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo, dated 2/22/24;

Encino Neurological Medical Group Evaluation, dated 3/24/23;

Numerous emails sent by Defendant Michael Taylor to myself and other individuals, dates ranging from 5/4/24 to 5/23/24.

Psychiatric-Legal Opinions:

Mr. Taylor suffers from the DSM-5 diagnosis of unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder.

Per Dr. D'Ingillo, Mr. Taylor suffers from neurodevelopmental disorder associated with prenatal alcohol exposure.

Mr. Taylor would benefit from an involuntary medication order."

---

🔹 Legal Analysis

This report reflects a critical and controversial escalation in the prosecution’s handling of People v. Michael Taylor, culminating in a recommendation for forced medication without a single in-person clinical interview.

1. No Interview Took Place

Dr. Tumu clearly admits: "I was unable to interview Mr. Taylor despite numerous attempts."

Despite this, he proceeds to issue a psychiatric-legal opinion based exclusively on third-party documents and the now-contested PC 730 evaluation authored by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo (see Exhibit B-2), which itself was based on a court order now under challenge.

2. Reliance on Disputed Source Material

The centerpiece of Dr. Tumu’s opinion is the February 22, 2024 evaluation by Dr. D’Ingillo — a report already exposed as problematic due to its citation of a non-existent Minute Order dated October 2, 2024, and a breach of confidentiality in contradiction of the October 2, 2023 sealed order by Judge Clover (see Exhibit B-1).

3. Broad Psychiatric Conclusion Without Examination

Dr. Tumu asserts that Mr. Taylor suffers from "unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder," and would benefit from an Involuntary Medication Order (IMO).

These conclusions were drawn from:

A neurological evaluation unrelated to psychiatric competency,

A flawed 730 evaluation,

Generalized behavioral inferences from emails.

No direct diagnostic evidence was presented that arose from patient observation, conversation, or physical examination.

4. Coercive Use of Mental Health Statutes

This tactic — rendering an IMO recommendation based on record review alone — violates the spirit of due process under Penal Code § 1370.

Section 1370(d)(1)(A) of the California Penal Code requires clear and convincing evidence that involuntary medication is necessary and appropriate, usually supported by firsthand medical observation.

The Supreme Court, in Sell v. United States (2003) 539 U.S. 166, has held that forced medication must meet stringent due process standards. This includes actual medical necessity, imminent danger, and least-restrictive alternatives — none of which are meaningfully demonstrated here.

---

🔹 Public Commentary (Accessible Explanation)

Let’s break this down:

A psychiatrist — hired by the court — filed a report saying Michael Taylor should be forcibly medicated. But here’s the shocking part:

> The doctor never even met him.

That’s right. No appointment, no sit-down conversation. Instead, the doctor relied on:

An earlier report that used a fake court record,

Some medical notes from a year prior,

And a few of Michael’s emails.

Then he checked a box saying:

> “Yes, this man should be medicated against his will.”

That’s not just reckless — it’s dangerous.

In America, you cannot force drugs into someone’s body unless it’s absolutely necessary and legally justified. That means:

A real, in-person psychiatric evaluation,

A medical emergency or serious risk,

And a fair hearing where the person can defend themselves.

None of that happened here. This exhibit is a red flag.

---

🔹 Implication for the Dossier

Exhibit B-7 represents a constitutional breakdown in mental health adjudication. The record shows:

No interview,

No new clinical findings,

And complete reliance on a previously discredited evaluation.

This document is the prosecution’s attempt to create a legal pretext for forced medication using only secondhand and defective records, placing the defendant at extreme risk of harm without due process.

When viewed alongside Exhibits B-1 through B-6, this shows a pattern: instead of curing known due process violations, the state doubled down — escalating toward coercive medical control without lawful foundation.