Thank You for Listening: Reflecting on the State’s Psychiatric Evaluation
Thank You for Listening: Reflecting on the State’s Psychiatric Evaluation
First, I want to start by saying thank you to all my friends and family for reading this. I’m overwhelmed by how many of you have taken the time to hear my story and reach out with your support and encouragement. It means the world to me.
Over the past year, I’ve written more than 25,000 words about my experience. Now, I’m working to share it in a way that’s digestible and meaningful. Looking back, I realize that sharing this earlier could have been invaluable. Your insights might have helped me avoid this legal disaster altogether.
That reflection brings me to today’s topic: the state’s psychiatric evaluation and its role in my case.
The State’s Evaluation: Delays and Discrepancies
The state’s psychiatric evaluation stands out for its delays and a critical error that I’m still struggling to understand. Here’s the timeline:
• May 22, 2023: The evaluation was conducted over Zoom and lasted approximately 3.3 hours.
• November 20, 2023: The report was submitted—a delay of nearly six months.
The delay itself is troubling, but what’s even more perplexing is a glaring inaccuracy in the report. Under the section titled “Diagnosis at the Time of the Crime,” the evaluator claimed I have “a history of a DUI.” This is categorically false. I’ve never had a DUI nor had I been accused of one.
Introducing a False Narrative
This mistake might seem minor on the surface, but it could have significant implications. A DUI—or any substance-related claim—shifts the narrative away from mental health and toward substance abuse.
Substance involvement can complicate an insanity defense by suggesting that the accused was acting under the influence, rather than suffering from a mental health crisis. Was this inaccuracy simply an oversight, or was it a strategic move to undermine the focus on my mental health?
Adding to the complexity is the fact that, days after the incident, I was hospitalized and diagnosed with “unspecified psychosis NOT DUE to a substance or known physiological condition.” This diagnosis explicitly ruled out substances as a contributing factor. Why, then, would the state’s report introduce this false claim?
Questions About the Process
The state’s evaluation leaves me with several questions:
• Why did it take six months to submit the report? Could the evaluator’s out-of-state status and ties to Florida have played a role in the delay?
• Does the state fund these evaluations, and could this relationship influence their findings? Is it possible for evaluators to be guided, knowingly or unknowingly, much like a witness might be led by a law enforcement officer?
• Did the inaccurate DUI claim shape the judge’s perception? Could this have been the moment when the court began to consider substance abuse instead of focusing solely on mental health?
A Clearer Picture from the Defense
For contrast, the defense’s evaluation was conducted much earlier, on November 15, 2022, and submitted just two weeks later, on November 28, 2022.
This evaluation concluded:
“The examinee meets the legal criteria for insanity based on the presence of a major mental disorder at the time of the alleged offense that interfered with his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The examinee does not meet the criteria for psychiatric hospitalization but would benefit from weekly counseling, continued compliance with prescribed medication, and random drug testing.”
Notably, the defense’s evaluation focused entirely on my mental health and avoided introducing irrelevant or inaccurate claims, such as substance abuse.
Thank You Again
I share this story not to assign blame, but to better understand how the system works and how it could be improved. If you’ve experienced something similar or have insights into the role of psychiatric evaluations in legal cases, I’d love to hear from you.
Thank you again for reading and for being part of this conversation. Your support and input mean more than I can express, and together, we can work toward greater fairness and transparency in the system.