|
FROM THE COURT
Appeal from the District Court denying petition that Eric J. Betancourt met standards of incompetency to be executed under Connecticut General Statute (CGS) ? 54-101 and pursuant to Nealy v. Wasson, 353 U.S. 401, 106 S.Ct. 2684 (1986).
Affirmed.
Pursuant to a warrant issued in Superior Court, Eric J. Betancourt (Betancourt) was scheduled for execution according to the provisions of CGS ? 54-99 on Tuesday, April 25, 2000.
On Wednesday, January 26 2000, attorneys Matthew Trentacosta and Hank Koziel [Law Offices of Koziel, Ruggiero, & Cole, New Haven CT] filed a petition in the Court seeking (1) a stay of execution, and (2) formal "next friend" status for James Betancourt, father of Betancourt.
The petition asserts that Betancourt is not competent to be executed, suffers from Brief Reactive Psychosis, and does not understand the nature of any judicial proceeding or its implications. It further asserts that Betancourt's choice to withdraw (1) his petition challenging competency of counsel at the penalty phase and (2) his petition challenging imposition of sentence has no rational basis and is based on his delusional perception.
The Court issued a stay for the purposes of holding a hearing to determine matters presented in the petition.
The petition includes the affidavits of Dr. Lance Martinez and Dr. Christine Woodward.
In summary, the affidavit of Dr. Martinez, dated July 13, 1999, identifies Dr. Martinez as a medical doctor and psychiatrist who serves as a staff psychiatrist at the Malcolm Morton Connecticut Correctional Institute (CCI) in Bynum. Dr. Martinez had oppurtunity to evaluate and observe Betancourt from 1996 to 1999 and interviewed Betancourt on five occasions between January and July in 1999, with the last occasion having occurred on July 8, 1999.
Dr. Martinez states his opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Betancourt suffers from Brief Reactive Psychosis. Dr. Martinez describes Betancourt as a highly intelligent but disturbed and cognitively impaired individual. Dr. Martinez further states that based upon his knowledge of Betancourt, it is his opinion that Betancourt neither appreciates the punishment he is about to suffer or its implications. Dr. Martinez indicates that Betancourt's inability to comprehend reality, make rational litigation decisions, and understand the reasons or the facts of his impending execution result from his serious mental illness.
The affidavit of Christine Woodward describes her as a licensed physician engaged in the study and practice of general and forensic psychiatry since 1990. Dr. Woodward visited Betancourt in prison between June and August 1999, with the most recent visit having occurred on August 25, 1999. Dr. Woodward states with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Betancourt suffers from Brief Reactive Psychosis classified as a sudden onset of psychotic features with symptoms related to severe stress. Dr. Woodward further states that Betancourt suffers from hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized behavior, and suggests that the conditions of incarceration on death row have had an effect on Betancourt's mental state.
On September 20, 1999, a hearing was conducted in Superior Court to determine Betancourt's competency to make litigation decisions. During the course of the hearing, the court suspended proceedings and directed three psychiatrists to examine Betancourt.
On November 15, 1999, following the examination, the hearing resumed with psychiatrists' testimony that Betancourt was competent.
At the close of hearing the court found Betancourt competent.
The court further indicated that Betancourt's "clear me or kill me" declaration was a "devious" attempt to manipulate judicial process and gain "headlines." The court warned that the strategy would not "yield intended results."
(1) This Court finds that although Betancourt suffers from Brief Reactive Psychosis, the petitioner seeking "next friend" status did not satisfy the burden of establishing that Betancourt was incompetent. Betancourt's Brief Reactive Psychosis does not substantially affect his capacity to appreciate his position and make rational choices with respect to continuing or abandoning proceedings in court.
(2) "Next friend" appellate litigation would be improper in this case because Betancourt is competent and does not wish to proceed with appellate review.
(3) We note Betancourt's testimony at the Superior Court hearing that he does not wish his attorneys to appeal was followed by the filing of the petition in Connecticut Supreme Court seeking "next friend" status for James Betancourt, Betancourt's father. We further note that if Attorneys Trentacosta and Koziel were instructed by their client not to file an appeal, there would appear to be a conflict of interest preventing them from representing a person (James Betancourt) asserting that their client was incompetent to give them such instructions.
The Court remands, directing the lower court to appoint counsel for Betancourt.
|
buy the book