🔷 EXHIBIT A-2: May 8, 2025 — Counsel Dismisses Defendant’s Due Process Objections While Fixating on Alleged Guilt
---
1. Editorial Context Summary
This exchange between Deputy Public Defender Vernon Patterson (#165016) and Defendant Michael Taylor on May 8, 2025, further evidences a persistent breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The communication begins with Patterson dismissively instructing Taylor to ignore prior alleged procedural violations involving the court and public defender’s office, insisting that trial preparation is the only legitimate concern. In doing so, Patterson both trivializes Taylor’s constitutional objections and centers the exchange around a prejudicial interpretation of a text message ("you caught a body")—presumed evidence of guilt.
Taylor's reply is a constitutional outcry—a clear, urgent, and articulate rejection of representation that has ignored structural due process violations, most notably the implementation of a Penal Code § 730 competency evaluation without a court order, which was later accepted by the court in violation of PC §§ 1368, 1370, and relevant Fourteenth Amendment safeguards. His response conveys legal clarity and psychological distress under coercive counsel, underscoring how Taylor’s civil liberties were bypassed under color of law.
---
2. Full Verbatim Transcript
Date: May 8, 2025
Exhibit ID: A-2
Participants:
Michael Taylor (Defendant)
Vernon Patterson (#165016, Bar Panel Attorney)
---
Vernon Patterson (9:38 AM):
“Mr. Taylor, I don’t think you understand what is going on. I’m not going to discuss things that happened with the public defender or the judge. We have a trial to prepare for and that should be your focus. We have to explain why [you] told the police that you didn’t know that you ran over someone yet you texted a friend saying that you caught a body.”
---
Michael Taylor (9:48 AM):
“Well PC 1368 was violated and I was indisputably deprived of liberty without due process. If these aren't issues you are willing to address, I'm afraid I can't see a path forward with you as my appointed counsel. Dealing with you is causing me serious undue anxiety, stress, and panic. My hands are shaky and my heart drops anytime I have to deal with you because there is more than enough evidence that you are prejudicing me with a straight face.
Namely, because anytime I speak with you, you always fail to answer my most pressing questions. They are not rhetorical questions. Why is there a predetermined denial of mental health diversion? There's enough evidence here to prove everyone has actually committed crimes but me. There is more than enough here to prove fraud because tha assessment was presented in court, accepted by court, and filed in court.
Why would you tolerate a competency assessment given tha appearance of legality when you already know there was never a court order for it? Please excuse my language but what tha fuck is wrong with you? That's incompetent and prejudicial representation. You are basically telling me your unwillingness to even discuss these issues is what gives credibility to tha charges. Unacceptable.
I don't appreciate how you guys are making it nearly impossible to cooperate tha way I'm supposed to. You cannot put me in a position where I'm forced, coerced, or compelled to harm myself. This representation will not be tolerated.”
---
3. Legal Analysis and Evidentiary Commentary
This colloquy is a forensic goldmine—documenting real-time constitutional violations, psychological coercion, and clear indicators of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Key Legal Violations and Indicators:
Dismissal of Due Process Violations: Patterson’s refusal to discuss violations of Penal Code § 1368 (mental competence procedures) is an explicit abandonment of constitutional advocacy. His statement—“I’m not going to discuss things that happened with the public defender or the judge”—is a violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 1.3 (Diligence).
Prejudicial Framing of Guilt: By fixating on a single text message—“you caught a body”—without contextualizing the defendant’s mental state, Patterson is arguably perpetuating prosecutorial framing rather than defending against it. This may violate Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest) if his loyalty to the defense is compromised.
Failure to Investigate Unlawful Psychiatric Evaluation: Taylor’s claim that the PC 730 assessment was "presented in court, accepted by court, and filed in court" without a court order, if true, indicates judicial fraud and deprivation of due process. Patterson’s unwillingness to address this may meet the Strickland v. Washington threshold for IAC.
Coercive Representation: Taylor explicitly references being made to feel panic, anxiety, and emotional harm by continued interactions with his attorney, invoking the Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation and Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests in bodily integrity and mental well-being.
Statutory and Case Law Anchors:
California Penal Code § 1368, § 1370, § 730 – governs competency procedures.
California Evidence Code § 452(c) – authorizes judicial notice of official acts and court records.
People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668 – outlines requirements for competency assessments.
Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 – ineffective assistance of counsel.
California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.7.
---
4. Forensic Psychoanalysis
Vernon Patterson:
The tone of superiority (“you don’t understand what is going on”) reflects paternalistic dominance, often employed by legal professionals seeking to neutralize client objections without addressing substance.
Ignoring Taylor’s constitutional concerns while pivoting to factual guilt implies tunnel vision or willful strategic blindness—a form of institutional gaslighting.
The omission of empathy or clarification signals a potential detachment from client autonomy, and may reflect role confusion (acting as an arm of the court instead of the defense).
Michael Taylor:
Demonstrates a coherent constitutional vocabulary and accurate legal framework to explain his position.
Expresses acute psychological harm caused by counsel’s actions, consistent with symptoms of forced compliance stress disorder, often present in custodial settings where legal recourse feels inaccessible.
Taylor’s use of blunt language ("what tha fuck is wrong with you") is not hostile without cause; it is an escalation prompted by unaddressed due process violations and institutional stonewalling—indicative of hyperarousal under systemic injustice.
---
5. Public Interest Commentary
This exchange unmasks a deeper institutional rot: a defense attorney assigned to protect the accused not only fails to acknowledge egregious violations of procedure, but also actively suppresses inquiry into them—all while demanding compliance with a trial that is itself tainted by procedural fraud.
What Taylor is expressing is not merely frustration—it is a legal and psychological cry for help. His rights were suspended, a fraudulent evaluation performed, and the appointed counsel remains silent about it. This conversation is a public record of state-sanctioned gaslighting, and it is every bit as dangerous as it sounds.
This is how innocent people are convicted. This is how the system protects itself.
---
6. Credibility Links & Citations
📚 Legal References:
.jpg "Exhibit A-2: Vernon Patterson Dismisses Due Process While Presuming Client's Guilt")
Comments
Post a Comment