DEFENDANT #10: HANNAH MANDEL 333020 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132)
Assigned as replacement counsel by the Alternate Public Defender’s Office after Michael H. Salmaggi’s silent recusal. Hannah Mandel, also a graduate of Southwestern Law School, served during a transitional yet critical stage — and is named in the Dossier for withholding psychiatric records from the defendant, facilitating secret handoffs of evidence to Vernon Patterson, and declaring a conflict of interest in response to constitutional assertions made by the defendant via voicemail.


Summary of Involvement
Hannah Mandel entered People v. Michael Taylor as an appointee of the Alternate Public Defender’s Office at a time when the procedural integrity of the case was collapsing. Rather than restore transparency or advocate for the defendant’s access to critical records, Mandel continued the obstructive pattern already entrenched by prior counsel.

When Michael Taylor requested a copy of Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo’s psychiatric evaluation — the very document used to initiate his unlawful confinement — Mandel refused to provide it. Instead, she handed the assessment directly to Vernon Patterson, a subsequent attorney who had not yet been introduced to the record in any meaningful or consensual way. This transfer occurred without the defendant’s review or informed consent, effectively denying his right to inspect, challenge, or respond to the document being used to determine his mental fitness and continued detainment.

Soon after the defendant asserted his constitutional rights in a voicemail — raising concerns about sealed orders, ineffective counsel, and unlawful psychiatric commitments — Mandel declared a conflict of interest, abruptly withdrawing from the case. Neither Mandel nor her office ever provided a reason for the conflict, mirroring the institutional silence previously demonstrated by Daroca-Bell and Salmaggi.

While her tenure was short, Mandel’s actions reflected a broader procedural design: isolate the defendant from records, suppress his objections, and rotate legal representation before liability can attach.


Why She Is Defendant #10 in the Dossier:

• Refused to provide a constitutionally significant document (Dr. D’Ingillo’s assessment) to her own client.
• Transferred evidence to outside counsel before the defendant could inspect it, undermining client confidentiality and informed participation.
• Declared a conflict of interest after receiving a voicemail asserting constitutional violations, without explanation or process.
• Continued the pattern of defense abandonment, cloaked in institutional formality but substantively indistinguishable from procedural sabotage.

> “Hannah Mandel did not stand long, but where she stood mattered — between her client and the truth. The Dossier marks her not for the length of her silence, but for its depth.”