Scrutinizing the Foundations: A Legal Analysis of Michael Taylor's Competency Proceedings
The legal trajectory of Michael Taylor's case, as detailed in the provided communications and court orders, reveals a critical procedural dispute at its core: the validity of the initial psychological assessment that declared him incompetent to stand trial. This analysis examines how the execution of this assessment appears to deviate from established court orders and explores the significant objective legal implications arising from such discrepancies.
The narrative begins with Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell, Taylor's public defender, pursuing a mental health diversion under Penal Code (PC) Section 1001.36. On October 2, 2023, Judge Suzette Louise Clover issued an "ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIST/PSYCHOLOGIST" explicitly appointing Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo to "evaluate the defendant for mental health diversion pursuant to PC 1001.36" and stating that "any reports generated as a result of the consultation will be confidential." This order clearly defines the scope and confidentiality of the evaluation.
However, a fundamental procedural misstep appears to occur with Dr. D'Ingillo's subsequent report. Dated February 22, 2024, the report states, "Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 10/02/2024, I have evaluated Mr. Taylor for the purpose of a Penal Code (PC) 730 Competency Assessment." This statement directly contradicts the October 2, 2023, order, which authorized an evaluation solely for PC 1001.36 mental health diversion, not for PC 730 competency. Crucially, the formal court order to appoint a psychiatrist for a PC 730 competency assessment, under PC 1368, was not issued until February 14, 2024—after Dr. D'Ingillo's evaluation dates of January 5 and January 18, 2024.
This discrepancy presents several critical objective legal implications:
* Violation of Due Process and Lack of Proper Authority for Competency Assessment: The most significant implication is that Dr. D'Ingillo performed a PC 730 competency assessment without a valid court order specifically authorizing it at the time of his evaluation. Due process requires that legal proceedings, especially those impacting a defendant's liberty and fundamental right to participate in their defense, be conducted with proper legal authority and notice. If the initial finding of incompetence was based on an evaluation conducted outside the scope of the authorizing court order, it raises serious questions about the legal foundation of all subsequent actions, including the suspension of criminal proceedings under PC 1368.
* Breach of Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege: The October 2, 2023, order explicitly stated the diversion evaluation report would be "confidential." However, Dr. D'Ingillo's subsequent report for competency explicitly states, "The defendant was explained and understood aspects of non-confidentiality inherent in this evaluation." This contradiction is profound. If Taylor participated in an evaluation believing it was for diversion and confidential, as per the initial court order, and that information was then used to declare him incompetent in a non-confidential manner, it could be argued that his attorney-client privilege was violated, and his consent (or lack thereof) to a non-confidential competency assessment was not properly obtained or informed. This could undermine the reliability of the assessment if Taylor's cooperation was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose and implications.
* Tainted Subsequent Proceedings: The finding of incompetence by Dr. D'Ingillo directly led to the suspension of criminal proceedings, further competency evaluations (by Dr. Tumu and Dr. Knapke), and ultimately the involuntary medication order (IMO) on August 30, 2024. If the initial assessment that triggered these events was procedurally flawed, then all subsequent actions predicated upon that initial finding could be argued as legally tainted or invalid. This creates a challenging "fruit of the poisonous tree" scenario, where the initial defect could undermine the legitimacy of the entire competency process that followed.
* Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Concerns: Taylor repeatedly pressed his subsequent attorney, Vernon Patterson, for the court order for Dr. D'Ingillo's PC 730 assessment, which Patterson stated he could not find and later dismissed as a "non issue." This failure to acknowledge or address the specific procedural discrepancy, despite Taylor's persistent concerns, could raise questions about whether Taylor received effective assistance of counsel in challenging the legitimacy of the competency determination.
Taylor's consistent assertion that he "never consented to a competency assessment" and his belief in a "jurisdictional defect" are not merely the ramblings of a defendant but reflect a deep-seated concern about these procedural irregularities. His refusal to cooperate with subsequent evaluations and his declaration of self-dismissal of the case underscore his conviction that the proceedings against him have been fundamentally unconstitutional. While the court and his counsel maintained that his rights were protected and that his mental illness was impeding his understanding, the objective record reveals a clear disjuncture between the court's initial order and the subsequent execution and interpretation of Dr. D'Ingillo's evaluation.
This case exemplifies the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in legal proceedings, particularly when a defendant's mental competency is at issue. Any deviation can lead to legitimate challenges regarding due process, the validity of subsequent orders, and the fundamental fairness of the justice system.
The verbatim colloquy is provided below.
⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️
‼️ Verbatim Timeline Colloquy of Text/Email Communications, Court Orders, and Psychological Evaluations demonstrating the breakdown in constitutionality in PEOPLE V. MICHAEL TAYLOR XNEGA1111-32. ‼️
**9/13/23**
Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell #265746: "A Diversion motion would require a psychological evaluation with a doctor that I would ask the court to appoint at no cost to you. The doctor would evaluate you with specific parameters addressing the factors for diversion set forth in PC 1001.36. Once we have that evaluation, I would prepare a motion, based on the evaluation of the psychologist appointed. The court would rule on the motion. I think you have a great shot at getting mental health diversion in this case, but I cannot guarantee it with 100% certainty."
**10/2/2023**
Judge Suzette Louise Clover: "Court Order by Judge Suzette Louise Clover (10/2/2023):
CONFIRMED COPY
ORIGINAL FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
OCT 02 2023
David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
LAW OFFICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
Danielle Daroca Bell, Deputy Public Defender
Bar No.: 265746
310 S. Walnut St., Ste 311
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 356-5471
Attorney for Defendant
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. GA111132
Plaintiff,
ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIST/PSYCHOLOGIST
UNDER SEAL
GOOD cause having been shown, Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo
Psy.D., PACE No. 834041440
680 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 180
Pasadena, CA 91001
(626) 720-3721
(626) 498-2133 (fax)
pdingillo@aol.com,
IS HEREBY APPOINTED as a confidential expert to examine all reports in the above-
entitled case, evaluate the defendant for mental health diversion pursuant to PC 1001.36 and consult with defense
counsel. The expert is appointed pursuant to Sections 730, 952, and 1001.36 of the California Evidence Code.
Pursuant to those sections, any reports generated as a result of the consultation will be confidential.
All costs incurred are to be paid by the County of Los Angeles. Dr. D'Ingillo shall be paid a rate of $750 for MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING EXPERT
Signed: Hon. Judge Suzette Louise Clover"
**10/5/23**
Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell #265746: "Dr. D’Ingillo will be making contact with you to evaluate you for eligibility pursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.36."
**2/14/24 MINUTE ORDER COMPLETE TRANSCRIPTION:**
"SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Criminal Division
Pasadena Dept. - F
XNEGA111132-01
The People of the State of California
vs.
TAYLOR, MICHAEL BERNARD J
Honorable Suzette Clover, Judge
J. Diaz, Judicial Assistant
February 14, 2024
8:30 AM
Verlaine Turner (#6201), Court Reporter
PC664-187(a), VC20001(b)(2), VC20002(a)
---
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Pretrial Conference/Trial Setting
The following parties are present for the aforementioned proceeding:
MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR, Defendant
Danielle Marie Bell, Deputy Public Defender
William S. Park, Deputy District Attorney
The matter is called for Pretrial Conference/Trial Setting.
---
Defense counsel declares a doubt as to the Defendant's mental competence pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. Criminal proceedings are suspended.
A county approved psychiatrist is appointed pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 to examine the Defendant and prepare a report on the Defendant's current mental status within the meaning of Penal Code section 1368.
The Court orders the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to allow the appointed doctor(s) to have access to a laptop computer during the interview.
A packet of documents including a copy of the minute order declaring a doubt, a copy of the accusatory pleading (complaint, information, or citation), a copy of the arrest report, a copy of the booking (if the defendant is out of custody on bond), and a copy of Los Angeles County Pretrial Release Program form (LOSC CRIM 302) (if the defendant is out of custody on Supervised Released Program) is ordered transferred to the Mental Health Division via the case management system to the Mental Health resource account within 24 hours of this order.
A copy of the arrest report must be sent separately to the Mental Health Division via the Mental Health resource account.
Defense counsel states that the defendant is unable to assist her with this case and declares a doubt.
The people's oral request for the defendant to be remanded is heard, argued, and denied.
Defendant is admonished to keep in contact with their attorney if there is any issues.
On Court's motion, 1368 PC Competency Hearing is set for Wednesday, February 28, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Hollywood Mental Health PC1368.
The Defendant is ordered to return on the above date. Defendant Bond Posted. Cash Bail : LAB672360002, Bond to Stand"
---
**PC 730 Competency Assessment by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo (2/14/2024):**
"FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
FEB 28 2024
David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
BY: M. Alaberkyan, Deputy
Pietro "Piero" D'Ingillo, Psy.D
Clinical and Forensic Psychologist- CA License 19141
200 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91101
Cell 323-573-0191
Fax 310-295-3131
pdingillo@aol.com
PC 730 EVALUATION
February 22, 2024
Hon. Suzette Clover, Judge
Los Angeles Superior Court
Pasadena, Dept. F
300 N. Walnut St.
Pasadena, CA 91001
RE: TAYLOR, Michael
Case No.: GA111132
Counsel for Petitioner: The People of the State of California
Counsel for Respondent: D. Daroca, Deputy Public Defender
DOB: 01/19/1990
Date of Evaluation: 01/05/2024 and 01/18/2024
Dear Judge Clover:
Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 10/02/2024, I have evaluated Mr. Taylor for the purpose of a Penal Code (PC) 730 Competency Assessment.
Statement of Non-Confidentiality: The defendant was explained and understood
aspects of non-confidentiality inherent in this evaluation. He comprehended that a
report will be written for the Court discussing our interview.
Sources of Information: The following data was reviewed prior to telephonically
interviewing the defendant on 01/05/2024 and 01/18/2024, as he is living in Seattle,
Washington. E-mail correspondence from Ms. Daroca, Minute Order, Arrest Report and
Medical Records.
Summary of Opinion:
A. The defendant has a major mental disease, disorder, or defect.
B. The defendant is not competent (see report).
Signed: Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo"
**2/15/24**
Defendant Michael Taylor: "Also, I'd like a copy of the report by the doctor that recommends the transfer to mental health court please. I just want to understand my case so I can defend myself the best way possible."
**2/28/24 MINUTE ORDER COMPLETE TRANSCRIPTION:**
"SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Mental Health Division
Hollywood Courthouse Department 213
XNEGA111132-01
The People of the State of California
vs.
TAYLOR, MICHAEL BERNARD J
Honorable Ronald Owen Kaye, Judge
Brenda Magdaleno, Judicial Assistant
February 28, 2024
8:30 AM
Maria DeLuna (#13986), Court Reporter(s)
---
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1368 PC Competency Hearing Bond to Stand, Complaint Received filed on 2/14/2024, by, filed on 2/14/2024, by
The following parties are present in Court:
Michael Herman Salmaggi, Deputy Public Defender
Sharon Leonette Ransom, Deputy District Attorney
Defendant is not present. Appearance is waived.
---
The matter is called for hearing. On Defendant's motion, the matter is continued to the date and time indicated below.
The Court sets a 1368 PC Competency Hearing on March 8, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Hollywood Courthouse Department 213.
MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR is ordered to appear at the next hearing.
The Court orders the bond to stand.
Minute Order
Page 1 of 1"
**4/24/24**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "I don’t think what Ms. Bell did was wrong. My understanding is that she was pursuing mental health diversion. In or the get mental health diversion it requires an evaluation from a psychologist or psychiatrist. This was done and in your case it came back that you were incompetent to stand trial. Once she received this information she cannot continue on with your case as “normal.” A doubt was declared and your case was sent to the Hollywood court. The judge in department 213 now has to decide if you are competent or incompetent. In order for the court to make this determination it needs a report from a doctor. Hence, I have said that we or you have to address that issue. I can’t on my own conclude that you are competent. So it’s a “Catch 22” situation. My advice is to meet with the prosecution expert."
**5/1/24**
"PHANI M. TUMU, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology, with Added Certification in the Subspecialty of Forensic Psychiatry
23371 Mulholland Drive, #143
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
P: (310)-571-5597 E: drphanitumu@gmail.com www.phanitumumd.com
May 1, 2024
Honorable Ronald Owen Kaye
Hollywood Courthouse
Department 213
5925 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, CA 90028
FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
MAY 01 2024
RE: Michael Taylor
Case No.: XNEGA111132
Dear Judge Kaye:
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.
Please contact me if there are any questions about this matter.
Sincerely, Phani M. Tumu, M.D."
**5/8/24**
Defendant Michael Taylor: "Who decided on my behalf that PC 1001.36 would be changed to PC 1368 and/or PC 730? I never consented to a competency assessment."
**6/21/24:**
"Kory J. Knapke, M.D.
Forensic and General Psychiatry Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology
Phone: (310) 281-6587
Fax: (310) 301-0031
8149 Santa Monica Blvd. #270 West Hollywood, CA 90046.
FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
JUN 21 2024
June 21, 2024
Ronald Kaye, Judge
Mental Health Court Dept. #213
5925 Hollywood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Re: Michael Taylor
Case No.: XNEGA111132
Dear Judge Kaye:
Pursuant to a Court Order, dated June 6, 2024, the above captioned individual was
examined by Kory Knapke, M.D. under Sec. 730 E.C. and 1368 P.C. at the Los Angeles
County Twin Tower Jail Facility on June 7, 2024. The non-confidential nature of the
evaluation was explained to the defendant, but it is not clear whether he truly understood this.
In addition to my clinical interview, I also reviewed the felony complaint, the Glendale Police Department reports, the defendant's previous arrest record, and a neurological report by Arthur Kowell, M.D. dated March 24, 2023. At the time of this evaluation, I also reviewed a competency report by Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo, Psy.D. dated February 22, 2024.
Psychiatric-Legal Issues:
* Does the defendant suffer from a major mental illness?
* Does the defendant understand the charges and proceedings against him?
* Is the defendant able to rationally cooperate with his attorney in his defense?
* Is the defendant competent to stand trial?
Psychiatric-Legal Opinions:
Without conducting a clinical examination of the defendant, I am unable to an opinion as to whether the defendant understand the charges and proceedings him and whether he has the capacity to rationally assist his attorney. I am unable opinion as to whether the defendant is competent to stand trial or not."
**7/29/24**
Dr. Phani Tumu (Prosecution’s Appointed Doctor):
"PHANI M. TUMU, M.D.:
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology, with Added Certification in the Subspecialty of Forensic Psychiatry
23371 Mulholland Drive # 143
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
P: (310)-571-5597 E: drphanitumu@gmail.com www.phanitumumd.com
FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
By: C. Vargas, Deputy
AUG 30 2024
July 29, 2024
Honorable Ronald Owen Kaye
Hollywood Courthouse
Department 213
5925 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, CA 90028
RE: MICHAEL TAYLOR (IMO Report)
Case No.: XNEGA111132
Dear Judge Kaye:
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; and
* Numerous emails sent by Defendant Michael Taylor to myself and other individuals, dates ranging from 5/4/24 to 5/23/24.
Psychiatric-Legal Questions:
* Does Mr. Taylor suffer from a major mental illness?
* Would the defendant benefit from an involuntary medication order ("IMO")?
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."
**8/30/24 MINUTE ORDER PAGE 2 OF 3 COMPLETE TRANSCRIPTION:**
"SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Mental Health Division
Hollywood Courthouse Department 213
XNEGA111132-01
The People of the State of California
vs
TAYLOR, MICHAEL BERNARD J
August 30, 2024
8:30 AM
The Court finds that the Defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding psychotropic medication. If untreated with psychotropic medication, it is probable that the Defendant will suffer serious harm to his physical or mental health.
It is medically appropriate to treat the Defendant's psychiatric condition with psychotropic medication. This medication is likely to be effective. The treatment facility is authorized to administer involuntary psychotropic medication to the Defendant in an objectively reasonable manner consistent with the facility's policies when and as prescribed by the Defendant's treating psychiatrist.
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1370(a)(7), the involuntary medication order is in effect for three months or until maximum commitment date. The expiration date is Monday, December 2, 2024.
Los Angeles County Community Program Director or designee is ordered to provide a written recommendation for Placement pursuant to Penal Code Section 1370(A)(2)(A). Said report is due Tuesday, October 8, 2024.
The clerk is ordered to send the packet to Gateways/CONREP four days from this date.
Gateways/Conrep is/are ordered to examine MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR at NORF.Bkg.# 6817815.
Pursuant to HIPAA Section 164.512(e)(1)(i) of the Code of Federal Regulations provides as follows: Permitted Disclosures. A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding: (1) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity disclose only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order.
This Court expressly orders you to provide complete access to all patient records for the patient involved in a particular case. "Patient records" include written and oral materials.
This access shall be available to the following persons: Court staff, including Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health personnel assigned to the Mental Health Court; County Counsel attorneys and personnel; District Attorney deputies and personnel; Public Defender attorneys and personnel; court appointed psychiatrist, psychologist, attorneys, Department of State Hospital doctors or designee Gateways/CONREP.
This standing order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until further notice from this court.
MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR is disqualified from voting or registering to vote pursuant to Elections Code Section 2211.
The Court orders the above named person not to own, use or possess any dangerous or deadly weapons, including any firearms, knives or other concealable weapons.
Minute Order
Page 2 of 3"
**4/8/25**
Defendant: "Mr. Patterson,
So were you able to locate the court order for Dr. D'Ingillo's PC 730 competency assessment?"
Vernon Patterson #165016: "No, I was not able to find it. I just saw the bill."
**5/12/25**
Defendant: "I told you there was no court order for that assessment, and it resulted in me being committed to a state hospital, only for it to be true that no court order ever existed. What do you call that, Mr. Patterson?"
Vernon Patterson #165016: "I call it a non issue. The court you the same thing the last time we were in court."
**5/13/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "I looked into it and I don’t see anything that needs to be addressed. Yes, the doctor said somethings that on its face may seem to be inaccurate but the bottom line is that you were found incompetent at that time. More than one doctor came to that conclusion. You were evaluated again and found competent to stand trial."
**5/14/25**
"CONFORMED COPY
ORIGINAL FILED: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - MAY 14 2025
THE LAW OFFICE OF VERNON L. PATTERSON
Vernon L. Patterson
530 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 625
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone (626) 567-0944
Bar #163816
Email: Patterson.1Law@gmail.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No.: GA111132
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL TAYLOR, Defendant
COURT ORDER EX PARTE
Date: MAY 14 2025
* Order: GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Jack Rothberg, M.D., 6200 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048 (323) 857-8000 is appointed to evaluate Mr. Michael Taylor.
* Stipulation: Said expert is to make available all findings and reports to the defense only, to consult confidentially with defense counsel, Vernon L. Patterson, and to testify, if necessary, at trial or other pertinent proceedings in this case.
Judge of the Superior Court
MICHAEL D. CARTER, JUDGE"
**5/23/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "The court issued a warrant for your arrest. Call me ASAP"
Defendant: "Of course they did, bc u didn't challenge tha jurisdictional defect. I will not be giving you tha satisfaction of finishing this job for tha state and county. The Constitution is tha law of tha land, and this court has violated its own authority. I do not consent to prosecution in violation of my constitutional rights and state laws. And since my rights belong to me, I'm not giving tha court discretion to interpret. You did this to me, Mr. Patterson, because effective assistance of counsel is a constitutional right for all and you know that! Like I said before my bail was revoked, I beat this case already. And I'm gon TAKE my win if you don't give it to me. How yall lose to an indigent defendant!? I don't need a judge to dismiss a case that's already unconstitutional. I hereby dismiss this case. And tha United States can burn in hell for all I care at this point."
**5/24/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "You have a good case. Unfortunately, your mental illness has gotten in the way. It’s always better to fight the case from the outside. Now we will to fight the case with you in custody. You can’t run from this. They will find you and put you in custody. And, because you failed to appear the court will not let you out again until the case is finished. Your understanding of the legal process is flawed. Yes you do have constitutional rights and they have been protected. The law requires that you be competent to defend yourself. And you are not competent at this time. Take care of yourself."
Defendant: "Let's reason. Show me proof of that court order and I'll turn myself in today.
Vernon Patterson #165016: "Stop texting me."
**5/25/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "You put peoples life in danger. The police will go to your friends homes looking for you."
Defendant: "How did I put people's lives in danger, Mr. Patterson?"
Vernon Patterson #165016: "Because the police will come to there door in the middle of the night. Ask Paul, he will tell you!"
**5/28/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "Your rights are protected. Because you are on bench warrant status your speedy trial rights will not start until you are back in court. The prosecution will have 60 days to bring your case to trial. I doubt that the court will let me continue to represent you in which case your new lawyer may ask for more time to get ready."
Vernon Patterson #165016: "Here is the document you requested. And notice that it was filed under seal."
Defendant: "Received. Thank you. Now for that consent waiver and I'll go to tha police station right now."
Vernon Patterson #165016: "There is no waiver. I’m not going to look for that but she was within her duty to give the doctor your writing just in this situation when you are sharing your thoughts to everyone on this thread. You are only hurting yourself. You have a good case but you are making things difficult."
Defendant: "No, sir. Attorney-client privilege protects me, not the client. My statement was made to her and her supervisor only. I never shared that with the doctor. Furthermore, I explicitly waived Attorney-client privilege for specific reasons. You received this email as well, Mr. Patterson."
**5/29/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "As soon as you turn yourself in it can be addressed. Nothing will happen while the case is in bench warrant status."
**6/3/25**
Vernon Patterson #165016: "I have told you that you are in bench warrant status. Stop sending me group messages. You are wrong on so many levels. You think that you know what you are talking about but you don’t. I am concerned about your competency. In my opinion you are not competent. I will level it up to the doctors to make the final decision. You say that you want to get on with your life do it. Either come back to court or don’t. You will be arrested sooner or later. Stop the nonsense."
⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️
The provided colloquy, when viewed in the context of Michael Taylor's underlying criminal case (including charges of attempted murder), reveals several profoundly disturbing factors that speak to systemic failures and a fundamental breakdown in the administration of justice for this individual.
The most disturbing factor is the apparent foundational procedural irregularity regarding Dr. Pietro D'Ingillo's initial "competency assessment." The October 2, 2023, court order explicitly appointed Dr. D'Ingillo to evaluate Taylor for mental health diversion (PC 1001.36), with the report stipulated as confidential. However, Dr. D'Ingillo's report dated February 22, 2024, explicitly states he conducted a PC 730 Competency Assessment and that it was non-confidential, while still referencing the October 2, 2023, order as his authority. This is a direct contradiction. Crucially, the actual court order for a PC 730 competency assessment under PC 1368 was not issued until February 14, 2024—after Dr. D'Ingillo had already conducted his evaluations (January 5 and 18, 2024) and purportedly formed his opinion of Taylor's incompetence.
This means that the very assessment that triggered the suspension of criminal proceedings, initiated the competency track, and ultimately led to an involuntary medication order and potential state hospital commitment, appears to have been conducted without a proper, specific, and contemporaneous court order for a competency evaluation at the time it was performed. This is not a mere technicality; it strikes at the heart of due process, as Taylor's fundamental right to understand and participate in the proceedings against him hinges on a legitimately established finding of competence.
Flowing from this core issue are further disturbing elements:
* The Inexplicable Dismissal of Taylor's Legitimate Due Process Concerns by His Counsel: Michael Taylor consistently and articulately raises this very procedural flaw, stating, "Who decided on my behalf that PC 1001.36 would be changed to PC 1368 and/or PC 730? I never consented to a competency assessment." He relentlessly demands proof of the court order for Dr. D'Ingillo's PC 730 assessment. His attorney, Vernon Patterson, repeatedly dismisses these concerns as a "non issue," attributes them to Taylor's "mental illness," and ultimately tells him to "Stop texting me." This constitutes a deeply disturbing failure of advocacy. Instead of investigating and potentially challenging the procedural defect Taylor identified, Patterson chose to invalidate his client's concerns, further eroding trust and trapping Taylor in a legal loop he couldn't comprehend or escape. For a defendant facing serious charges, the inability to have a fundamental procedural challenge even acknowledged, let alone litigated, is a profound denial of effective assistance of counsel.
* The Chain Reaction of Severe Legal Consequences Based on a Contested Foundation: The alleged improper competency finding led to a cascade of grave consequences for Taylor. His criminal proceedings were suspended. He was subjected to multiple further evaluations (which he resisted due to his unresolved procedural concerns). Critically, he was subjected to an involuntary medication order (IMO), a severe deprivation of bodily autonomy, based on Dr. Tumu's report which explicitly referenced Dr. D'Ingillo's potentially flawed initial evaluation. This means Taylor, who faces serious criminal charges, has been effectively removed from the criminal justice system and placed into a mental health commitment process, with involuntary treatment, stemming from an assessment whose legal basis he profoundly and reasonably questions, and for which his counsel offered no substantive challenge.
* The Systemic Impasse and Abandonment of the Defendant: The colloquy ends with Taylor as a fugitive, facing arrest and likely prolonged incarceration without bail, because he refuses to return to court under what he perceives as an unconstitutional premise. Patterson, having effectively given up on engaging with Taylor's core concern, warns him of the consequences, further isolating a defendant who, while possibly mentally ill, has articulated a specific and potentially valid legal grievance that the system has failed to address. The system's "Catch-22"—requiring an assessment Taylor won't cooperate with due to his concerns—demonstrates a lack of flexibility or mechanism to reconcile a defendant's valid legal challenges with the need for competency determinations.
In sum, the most disturbing factors revolve around the potential for a severe due process violation at the very outset of Taylor's competency proceedings, compounded by his defense counsel's failure to meaningfully address these concerns. This has led to a situation where a defendant facing serious criminal charges has been stripped of his agency and subjected to involuntary medical treatment, all while his core legal argument remains unlitigated and dismissed, ultimately trapping him in a cycle of distrust and confrontation with the very system meant to provide him justice.
Undisputable Violations: Constitutional Rights, Rules of Court (California), and Statutory Laws
Based on the provided colloquy and court documents, several constitutional rights, California Rules of Court, and California Penal Code sections appear to have been indisputably violated or significantly undermined in the case of Michael Taylor.
* This means Taylor was subjected to a competency evaluation, which is a significant deprivation of liberty and impacts his ability to stand trial, without a proper, specific, and contemporaneous court order for that type of evaluation. Due process requires that legal proceedings, especially those that can lead to involuntary commitment and medication, be initiated and conducted with clear legal authority and proper notice. The fundamental finding of "incompetence" was thus built on an unauthorized assessment.
* How Violated: PC 1368 outlines the procedure for declaring doubt regarding a defendant's mental competence. It states that if a doubt arises, the court shall suspend all proceedings and order a hearing on competence. Implicit in this is that the declaration of doubt and subsequent evaluations must follow proper legal procedure. The violation here is not in declaring doubt itself, but in the source of the information upon which the doubt was declared. If the only initial basis for declaring doubt and suspending proceedings was an evaluation (Dr. D'Ingillo's) that was obtained outside the scope of its authorizing order (i.e., it was a PC 1001.36 diversion evaluation repurposed as a PC 730 competency evaluation), then the very foundation for suspending proceedings under PC 1368 is suspect and arguably violated. The process of determining competence was flawed from its inception.
* How Violated: This section authorizes courts to appoint experts. The 10/02/2023 order correctly appointed Dr. D'Ingillo under this section for a PC 1001.36 evaluation. However, Dr. D'Ingillo's subsequent report misused this authorization. He performed a PC 730 competency evaluation based on an order that did not authorize it for that purpose or at that time. An expert appointed under EC 730 must act within the bounds of the court's order. Dr. D'Ingillo's report indicates he exceeded the scope of the original 10/02/2023 order by conducting a PC 730 competency assessment, and his reliance on that earlier order for a later, different type of assessment, constitutes a violation of the expert's duty to adhere to the court's specific directive.
* How Violated: The purpose of PC 1001.36 is to divert individuals with mental disorders from the criminal justice system to treatment. The initial evaluation was ordered for this purpose. However, the confidential report intended for diversion was then seemingly repurposed as a competency assessment (non-confidential), which led to the suspension of criminal proceedings rather than diversion. While the defense can certainly change its strategy, the unilateral conversion of a confidential diversion evaluation into a non-confidential competency finding, without proper new authorization for the latter purpose at the time of the evaluation, deviates from the spirit and intent of PC 1001.36 and the specific terms of the order.
Beyond the direct due process and effective assistance of counsel violations previously discussed, the circumstances surrounding Michael Taylor's case also raise serious concerns regarding potential violations of the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, his voting rights, and his speedy trial rights. While some of these are consequences of the underlying procedural flaws, their impact is significant.
The LPS Act (California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5000 et seq.) governs involuntary civil commitment for individuals with severe mental illness, emphasizing due process, limited duration, and the least restrictive environment. While Taylor's case primarily proceeds under criminal competency statutes (Penal Code § 1368), the court's August 30, 2024, order authorizing involuntary psychotropic medication directly invokes principles intertwined with LPS.
* How Violated (Indisputable Implication): The order explicitly states: "The Court finds that the Defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding psychotropic medication. If untreated with psychotropic medication, it is probable that the Defendant will suffer serious harm to his physical or mental health... The treatment facility is authorized to administer involuntary psychotropic medication to the Defendant..."
* This "involuntary medication order" (IMO) is a profound deprivation of bodily autonomy, typically requiring stringent due process protections similar to those found in the LPS Act, even when ordered within a criminal competency context (e.g., Penal Code § 1370(a)(7)).
* The indisputable violation arises because the fundamental finding of "incompetence" that justifies such an IMO traces back to Dr. D'Ingillo's initial PC 730 assessment. If that assessment was indeed conducted without proper legal authorization for a competency evaluation at the time, then the entire basis for declaring Taylor incompetent to make medical decisions and imposing involuntary medication becomes fatally flawed.
* The LPS Act's spirit and letter demand robust due process for involuntary treatment. If the underlying determination of the need for such treatment is built on a procedurally compromised foundation, then the legitimacy of the involuntary medication order itself is indisputably undermined, violating the principles of individual liberty and due process central to LPS.
* How Violated (Indisputable Consequence): The August 30, 2024, minute order explicitly states: "MICHAEL BERNARD J TAYLOR is disqualified from voting or registering to vote pursuant to Elections Code Section 2211."
* California Elections Code § 2211 permits disqualification for voting or registering to vote upon a judicial finding of mental incompetence.
* The indisputable violation here is a direct consequence of the indisputably flawed process that led to the finding of incompetence. If the initial PC 730 competency assessment was conducted without proper authorization, then the subsequent finding of incompetence built upon that assessment is tainted. Consequently, any disqualification from voting based on that tainted finding is an unlawful deprivation of a fundamental right. While the act of disqualification itself follows California statute if the underlying finding is valid, the invalidity of the foundational finding renders the disqualification itself an indisputable violation of Taylor's voting rights.
* How Violated (Indisputable Indirect Violation/Prolonged Delay): On February 14, 2024, when defense counsel declared doubt as to Taylor's mental competence, the minute order states, "Criminal proceedings are suspended." This legally pauses the speedy trial clock in California (Penal Code § 1368).
* However, the indisputable violation arises not from the act of suspending proceedings, but from the unlawful basis for that suspension. If the initial finding of incompetence that triggered the PC 1368 suspension was derived from an unauthorized and procedurally flawed assessment (Dr. D'Ingillo's PC 730 evaluation conducted before a proper order was in place), then the subsequent suspension of criminal proceedings, and the indefinite delay of his trial, becomes an indisputable violation of his right to a timely resolution of his case.
* Furthermore, Taylor's subsequent refusal to cooperate with further competency evaluations stemmed directly from his legitimate (though unaddressed by counsel) concerns about the procedural integrity of the initial assessment. This created an impasse that has led to an indefinite bench warrant, further prolonging the suspension of his trial rights. While technically the clock is paused during incompetency or bench warrant status, the cause of this prolonged suspension, rooted in the initial procedural defect and the system's failure to remedy it, effectively results in an indisputable, albeit indirect, denial of a speedy trial. Taylor is stuck in a legal limbo, neither moving towards trial nor effectively being able to challenge the process that put him there.
Comments
Post a Comment