FRANK D. WEBER, Ph.D.

, ABPP
2755 COTTAGE WAY, STE. 7
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
(916) 479-2022 email: dr_weber@sbcglobal.net

Honorable Steven M. Basha

Department 90 of the Courts
County of Sacramento
9605 Kiefer Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95827

Subject:
Court No:
Date of Birth:
Age:
Date of Evaluation: November 5, 2021
Date of Report: November 18, 2021

REASON FOR REFERRAL: I was appointed to examine to determine her competency

to stand trial. On 2/24/21, the minor failed to appear for an Appearance Progress Report Hearing
relative to an Alameda County Transfer-in Petition filed 2/21/19 and a San Francisco County
Transfer-in Petition filed 2/28/20. The court ordered a Bench Warrant be issued for the minor's
arrest (SA03403102). The Original Petition alleged, Count I: felony unlawfully use of tear gas
or tear gas weapon, Count II: misdemeanor unlawfully purchase, possess, or use tear gas or any
tear gas weapon, and Count Ill; misdemeanor resisting a peace officer. The minor was
interviewed at the Sacramento County Youth Detention Facility on November 5, 2021.

RECORDS REVIEWED:

Minute Order (10/21/2021)

15-Day Review Report (09/21/2021)
Physician Statement (08/19/2021)
Social Worker Update (07/15/2021)
Psychiatric Evaluation (04/29/2021)
Court Report Addendum (04/21/2021)
241.1 WIC Joint Assessment Determination (04/21/2021)
Probation Officer Request for Petition (03/30/2021)
Juvenile Intake Report (03/26/2021)
Detention Hearing Summary (03/26/2021)
Detention Risk Assessment (03/26/2021)
Name: X
Court No:

Acceptance of Custody (03/26/2021)

Juvenile Intake Report-Short Form (03/26/2021)
Incident Report (03/23/2021)
Court Findings (03/10/2021)
Juvenile Supervision Adjustment Summary (02/19/2021)
Juvenile Wardship Petition (02/19/2021)
Violation of Probation - Warrant (02/19/2021)
Notice of Violation of Probation (02/19/2021)
Social Study Report (01/22/2021)
Juvenile Custody Time Credits (01/22/2021)
Confinement Term (01/22/2021)
Detention Hearing Summary (01/09/2021)
Detention Risk Assessment (01/09/2021)
Probable Cause Declaration (01/09/2021)
Arrest Report (01/09/2021)
Juvenile Intake Report (01/09/2021)
Social Work Chrono (12/24/2020)
Motion to Modify Custody Status (12/24/2020)
High School Transcript – El Centro Jr./Sr. High School – Grade 11

INFORMED CONSENT: Before conducting the evaluation, the examiner informed the minor
of the purposes and probable use of the evaluation, as well as the limitations of confidentiality.
She was advised that the examiner is acting in the role of an evaluator and not a treating
professional. She was informed that the examiner would prepare a report, which will be
submitted to the court, that any history of physical or sexual abuse can by reported, and that her
participation is voluntary. The minor indicated that she understood the scope and intent of the
evaluation by repeating back in her own words what the examiner explained to her, and she
agree to participate under these conditions.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV)

Wide Range Achievement Test – Fifth Edition (WRAT5)
Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Interview (JACI)
Clinical Interview of Minor
Interview with Adopted Parents
Review of Available Records

2
Name: X
Court No:

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION AND BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS: The minor

presented as cooperative but somewhat withdrawn. Based on her consistent effort through the
two-hour evaluation and attempting to give answers on the JACI, even when she was not sure, it
is my opinion that she gave good effort throughout the evaluation. Her eye contact was fair and
her mood was constricted. She is considered to be an adequate historian because her report of the
circumstances about her case was consistent with the information in the record. However, her
understanding of the circumstances of her case was very limited. It should be noted that while
she was cooperative during the 2-hours I spent with her, at the end of this 2-hour period she was
unwilling to continue with the interview. She stated that she was tired of talking with me. For
this reason, the background history will be presented from the approximately 150 pages of
records I was provided.

The minor presented as a casually dressed and groomed 17-year-old African-American youth.
Her grooming and hygiene were fair. Her speech was of normal rate and rhythm, but she had
some difficulty expressing herself and did not seem to understand some of the words she was
using such as “plead the 5th.” She was oriented to person, place and date. When asked the date
she stated, “Friday, November 5, 2021.”

She reported that her mood was “cool” Her affect was constricted throughout the evaluation, but
also was inappropriate to the content of the conversation at times. There were time when she
smiled to herself for no apparent reason. Her level of consciousness was not impaired. Her
immediate, short-term and long-term memory all appeared to be somewhat impaired. She was
able to count backwards from 20-1. She was able to say the alphabet without error. She was able
to spell the word “world” backwards. She was able to sit for the evaluation but was slightly
fidgety. The minor was asked to remember three simple words. She was able to repeat these
words back to the examiner immediately. At one minute, she remembered one of them. At five
minutes, the minor remembered all one of them. She did not know the name of the U.S.
president and reported that she did not know the name of the governor of California. She did not
know the capital of California or the capital of the U.S. She was able to comprehend an
appropriate solution to a simple situational problem. She was asked what she would do if she
found a letter on the street with an address and a new stamp on it. She answered, “Take it to the
mail place.” She was able to understand the underlying meaning of a simple proverb revealing
adequate ability to engage in simple abstract thinking. When asked what the saying “Don’t judge
a book by its cover,” meant, she replied, “You can’t just judge people by their looks.” Her
thought processes were somewhat tangential and she had to be redirected frequently. Many of
the questions needed to be repeated as well. She denied auditory or visual hallucinations during
the evaluation. She denied suicidal or homicidal ideation, and does not have any active plan or
intent for the same.

3
Name: X
Court No:

RELEVANT HISTORY

FAMILY HISTORY: According to the records reviewed, the minor was committed to the care
and custody of the Department of Child, Family and Adult Services on 03/10/2021 due to
“aggressive behaviors, unsafe CSEC behaviors, refusal to attend school, refusal to participate in
mental health services or take prescribed medication.” Also, “on or about December
20, 2020, the mother was unable or unwilling to pick the child up at time of discharge from St.
Mary's Psychiatric mental health facility due to the child's mental health and unwillingness to
participate in services.” The minor delivered her baby on August 15, 2021 and the baby was
removed from her care on August 16th, 2021 due to unstable mental health. While in the hospital,
the minor was described as “disassociating from reality” and refusing to care for her baby. Many
attempts were made to place the minor in an appropriate home but she refused to live with
family members and she was rejected for placement by many group homes. She was finally
placed in a facility on November 9, 2021.

According to the Joint Assessment Determination dated 04/21/2021, “On April 7, 2021, this
officer conducted a computerized search of the Child Protective Services (CPS) database which
revealed 21 referrals for the minor and her family out of San Francisco County and Sacramento
County between June 7, 2004 and January 14, 2021. The referrals alleged the minor and/or her
siblings as victims of general neglect, physical abuse, exploitation, and caretaker absence. Two
referrals were substantiated. The remaining referrals were closed and deemed inconclusive,
unfounded, loss contact with child, and or evaluated out.”

EDUCATION HISTORY: Per the Joint Assessment Determination dated 04/21/2021,

“According to the minor's social worker, "The child was previously enrolled in Civic Center
High School in San Francisco, California. It was reported the minor is currently in the 11th
grade. She has earned 36.5 high school credits and needs an additional 183.5 credits to graduate.
She has a grade point average of 0.83. It was further reported that the youth refuses to attend
school.”

“According to school records received, by Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) on

April 6, 2020, the minor is currently in the 11th grade. She has earned 40 high school credits and
needs an additional 180 credits to graduate. She has a grade point average of 1.04. The minor
has an active Individual Education Plan (IEP) with a primary diagnosis of Emotional
Disturbance. The last dated IEP was February 12, 2016, with San Francisco Unified SELPA. In
an IEP team meeting on March 14, 2016, it was identified the minor would attend class for
approximately five minutes and leave. No incentives or redirections have been successful. The
family notation indicated the minor was not listening to her mother at home, the family was in
temporary housing, and the mother was in poor health. According to Sacramento County
Juvenile Hall unit staff, the minor has not participated in school since her arrival to the unit.”

4
Name: X
Court No:

MENTAL HEALTH/PHYSICAL HEALTH HISTORY: Per the Joint Assessment

Determination dated 04/21/2021, “According to the minor's social worker, "On several different
occasions, the mother has expressed that the youth's behavior and mental health are more than
she can handle. The mother reported that in December 2020, the youth filed a missing child alert
with law enforcement and the youth is not a parent. The mother reported that the youth verbally
and physically attacks the mother and accuses the mother of being pregnant with the youth's
adult boyfriend to whom the youth is currently pregnant. The youth refuses to participate in
assessments to better understand how to treat her mental health issues. The youth was placed on
a 5150 hold in June 2020, December 2020 and assessed for a 5150 hold in February 2021 and
March 2021. The minor's social worker has met with the minor on two separate occasions at
YDF and the youth became agitated and verbally abusive towards the social worker and made
threats to "beat up" the social worker if the protective glass or doors were not detaining her."

“On January 20, 2021, Sacramento County Juvenile Hall Mental Health staff confirmed the
minor is diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Cannabis Dependence, Current Child
Conflict, and suspected child sexual abuse. The psychiatrist has not seen the minor and no
medical prescriptions have been prescribed for mental health needs.”

According to the Psychiatric Evaluation dated 04/29/2021, the minor has a history of aggression,
oppositional behavior, involuntary hospitalizations and mood dysregulation. Dr. Horst opined
that she would benefit from psychiatric medication to stabilize her mood but because she would
not cooperate with the interview, he did not prescribe any at that time. According to her
attorney, Ms. Ratshin, the minor had begun taking medication after giving birth earlier this year,
which has helped to stabilize her mood and decrease her behavior problems.

According to a Physician’s Statement dated 08/19/2021, Dr. Fischer described reports of the
minor making delusional statements about having five children. The report also cites a statement
by the minor’s mother stating that the minor had been reporting auditory and visual
hallucinations over the past year. Dr. Fischer gave her a diagnosis of “psychosis unspecified”
and prescribed her the medication Zyprexa. A 15-day Review Report cites an interview with Dr.
Fischer that indicated the minor was still delusional and her thinking was described as
“tangential.” He stated that the primary delusions involved a “monitor she claims is always
present in her and she has something called "warranties" which is identified as some sort of
device she keeps around.”

DESCRIPTION OF OFFENSE FROM RECORDS: According to the Joint Assessment

Determination dated 04/21/2021, “On August 6, 2020, Sacramento County accepted a Transfer-
In for Disposition relative to an Alameda County Transfer-In Petition filed on February 21,
2019, alleging misdemeanor illegal use of tear gas weapon (Count I) and felony battery on a
public transit employee (Count II); and a San Francisco County Transfer-In Petition filed on
February 28, 2020, alleging two counts of felony possession or purchase of cocaine for sale

5
Name: X
Court No:

(Counts I and Ill}, felony giving false identification to police (Count II), and two counts of
misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Counts IV and V). Relative to the Alameda
County Transfer-In Petition, the minor sprayed a train operator with pepper spray. Relative to
the San Francisco County Transfer-In Petition, officers observed the minor sitting on the BART
Plaza. Officers were aware of the minor's warrant out of Alameda County. The minor was
placed under arrest and during the search officers located a clear plastic baggie containing 20 pea
sized white rocks, which TruNarc tested for cocaine base, individually wrapped in a clear plastic
baggie in the minor's jacket pocket and marijuana in the minor's font pocket.

On August 6, 2020 and August 27, 2020, the minor failed to appear for an Initial Hearing and
the Court ordered a Bench Warrant to be issued for the minor's arrest. On September 3, 2020,
the minor, accompanied by her mother, surrendered herself to the Sacramento County Youth
Detention Facility. The minor signed a promise to appear for a Detention hearing on September
4, 2020, and she was released to the custody of her mother pending her Detention hearing. The
minor failed to appear for the September 4, 2020, hearing and the Court ordered a Bench
Warrant to be issued for the minor's arrest.

On November 20, 2020, the minor was arrested by the San Francisco Police Department for
driving without a license, a red light violation, and false identification. San Francisco County
Probation Department elected to forward the above matters to Sacramento County for
consideration, as the minor resides in Sacramento County. On December 1, 2020, the minor was
transported in custody from the San Francisco County Juvenile Hall to the Sacramento County
Juvenile Hall. On December 2, 2020, the minor appeared before the· Court and was ordered
released to her mother on Electronic Monitoring.

Per Probation chronological entries, On December 14, 2020, the minor's Global Navigation
Satellite (GPS) indicated the minor was out of range and shown to be in San Francisco,
California. On December 18, Sacramento County Probation was contacted by a UCSF Hospital
Social Worker indicating the minor was on a 72-hour 5150 hold. On said date, Probation
contacted the mother and she reported the minor's behavior is erratic and she does not know if
she can continue to provide care of the minor. On December 22, 2020, Probation contacted the
minor's mother via telephone. The mother stated she was not willing to pick the minor up from
St. Mary's Medical Center until the minor's mental health concerns have been addressed. The
mother further stated she has a four-year-old son and she did not want to subject him to the
minor's outbursts. The mother reported she was willing to accept the minor back in the home
once she has been treated. On December 23, 2021, Child Protective Services reported the
minor's mother refused to pick the minor up and had signed paperwork relinquishing her
parental rights. On said date, Child Protective Services reported the minor was angry about her
mom not picking her up and was aggressive towards herself and medical staff. She further
reported the minor was placed at a placement by CPS and had AWOLED after 30 minutes.

6
Name: X
Court No:

On December 24, 2020, a Motion to Modify Custody Status Warrant was issued, as the minor's
whereabouts were unknown.

On January 9, 2021, the minor was contacted by law enforcement and was transported and
booked into the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall relative to the outstanding warrants. During
the intake process, the minor revealed she was on a 72 hour mental health hold at UCSF hospital
and she was pregnant. The unit staff indicated the minor had a poor transition into the unit. She
yelled at unit and medical staff, refused to complete the PREA video, and she had previously
refused to complete a COVID-19 test. The minor has also refused to shower. When she
programs, she stares at the other residents and agitates them. The minor was referred lo special
needs on January 18, 2021.

On February 4, 2021, the minor was placed on Six Months Court Probation pursuant to 725 (A)
WIC for misdemeanor illegal use of tear gas weapon and two counts of misdemeanor possession
of a controlled substance. The minor was ordered released to DCFAS pending suitable
placement. On February 5, 2021, the minor was placed at New Passages in Clovis, CA.

On February 10, 2021, the minor's placement reported the minor received a 14-day notice after
threatening to fight/kill another resident and staff. On February 19, 2021, the minor AWOLED
from the group home.

According to San Francisco Police Department Report #210181769, on March 23, 2021, at
approximately 1136 hours, officers were dispatched to the Pancho Villa restaurant at 3071 16th
Street, regarding an assault with pepper spray. Upon arrival, officers contacted the victim, who
was rinsing her eyes with water in the bathroom. The victim reported an unknown female, later
identified as the minor, sprayed her in the face with an unknown substance. Officers contacted
X, who was sitting in the front passenger seat of a vehicle. Officers ordered X to exit the
vehicle, to which she replied, "Don't touch me" and refused to get out of the car. As officers
made contact with the minor's right arm, she began screaming, "Don't touch me," and tried to
pull her arm away from the officers. After the minor was detained, a search of her person
revealed a can of (E1) pepper spray which was located in her jacket pocket. The victim
identified the minor as the suspect who sprayed her. Additionally, as officers were conducting
their investigation, the minor spontaneously stated, "and I asked that bitch to walk away so I
sprayed her." The minor was arrested and booked into the San Francisco Juvenile Detention
Facility on fresh charges and her active warrants.”

I had a conversation with the minor about the circumstances of her case and she was able to give
a brief description of what happened and generally knew what she was originally charged with.
However, due to complexities of this case, she did not capture much of the actually legal
proceedings to date.

7
Name: X
Court No:

CLINICAL FINDINGS

INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING: The minor was administered the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale-4th Edition (WAIS-IV) in order to obtain an estimate of his intellectual
functioning most relevant to the issue of competency to stand trial. The WAIS-IV is comprised
of Verbal and Non-Verbal subtests and administered subtests measure a range of abilities. It
yields an estimate of the examinee’s current level of intellectual functioning and provides
information about the examinee’s individual pattern of strengths and weaknesses.

On the WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), she appears to be functioning in the
Extremely Low range. The VCI is an untimed measure the examinee’s use and understanding of
language by using subtests that assess the examinee’s abstract reasoning skills, vocabulary
development, and an examinee’s common-sense reasoning. Her score in this area indicates that
she has an impaired ability to participate in conversations or understand directions, and that her
ability to follow classroom discussions and explain ideas to others her age is also impaired. On
the Working Memory Index (WMI), she appears to be functioning in the Low range. The WMI
measures the examinee’s ability to register, maintain, and manipulate visual and auditory
information in conscious awareness. Registration requires attention, auditory and visual
discrimination, and concentration. On the Processing Speed Index (PSI), the minor scored in the
Low range. The PSI measures the speed and accuracy of visual scanning and identifying visual
objects, short-term memory, and visual-motor coordination.

Scale Composite Percentile Rank Classification

Score
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 68 2nd Extremely
Low
Working Memory Index 71 3rd Low
Processing Speed Index 74 4th Low

Her scaled scores on the Subtests are as follows:

WAIS-IV Subtest Scaled Scores

(average = 10)
Similarities (VCI) 5

8
Name: X
Court No:

Vocabulary (VCI) 4
Information (VCI) 4
Digit Span (WMI) 5
Arithmetic (WMI) 5
Coding (PSI) 4
Symbol Search (PSI) 6

The index that is most relevant to the assessment of competency to stand trial is the Verbal
Comprehension Index (VCI). The VCI gives an estimate of the minor’s ability to understand the
legal system. This score is in the Extremely Low range and indicates significant impairment.
The results from the Working Memory Index (WMI) is more sensitive to the effects of
concentration issues, and her lower score indicates that she will have difficulty remembering
what is explained to her. The results from the Processing Speed Index (PSI) indicate that her
speed and accuracy of visual scanning and identifying visual objects, short-term memory, and
visual-motor coordination is also impaired. These results indicate that the minor will most likely
have difficulty understanding the components of the legal systems quickly and may need
repetition of that information.

ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING: The minor was administered the Wide Range Achievement
Test-4th Edition (WRAT-4). The WRAT-4 is designed as a brief measure of academic
achievement in the areas of Word Reading (word recognition and pronunciation), Sentence
Comprehension, Spelling and Math Computation.

On the WRAT-4, she appears to be functioning in the Low range in Word Reading and Sentence
Comprehension. Her scores on the WRAT-4 are as follows:

WRAT-4 Standard Score Grade Equivalent

Word Reading 70 3.0

Sentence 67 67
Comprehensio
n

As can be seen by her Word Reading and Sentence Comprehension scores, she does slightly
better at identifying words than she does at understanding their meaning. However, both scores
indicate impairment in these areas.

9
Name: X
Court No:

APPRAISAL OF COMPETENCE: The format used in the current evaluation of this minor’s
competence is based on the Juvenile Adjudicative Competence Interview (JACI), which is
described in Evaluating Juveniles’ Adjudicative Competence (Grisso, 2005). The JACI is a tool,
which stresses the importance of and application of a developmental perspective in evaluating
the capacities of adolescents as they relate to their trial preparation and their adjudicative
competence. As the court is aware, recent appellate court decisions confirmed the importance of
a developmental perspective in evaluating competency.

The legal definition of competence to stand trial is patterned after the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Dusky v. United States (1960), affirmed, and elaborated in Godinez v. Moran (1993).
It must be determined whether the defendant has “sufficient present mental ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding,” and whether the defendant
has “rational as well as functional understanding of the proceedings against him.” (Dusky v.
U.S., p. 402). Evaluation of competence includes assessment of both the factual and rational
(essentially by assessing implications; i.e. “the defense attorney will assist me, and represent and
advocate for my interests and rights.”) components of the legal process.

Competence to stand trial applies to juveniles, as prior to Kent v. United States (1966) and In re
Gault (1967), they were not afforded the rights associated with criminal proceedings. Although
few articles have been published on the adjudicative competence of juveniles, recent
contributions describe general trends in the trial competence abilities of adolescents (Grisso et
al., 2003).

The process of the evaluation is primarily comprised of an interview of the minor focusing on
those issues that are relevant to both legal and mental health professionals. The ultimate decision
regarding the competence of this minor to participate in the ensuing judicial proceedings is,
however, left to the court. It is the intent of this evaluator to offer the following information to
the court in order to assist with the determination of the above-named minor’s current state of
adjudicative competence.

JUVENILE ADJUDICATIVE COMPETENCE INTERVIEW (JACI):

The minor reported that she has been to court many times times. She reported that she has met
with her attorney several times. This is unconfirmed.

(1) Nature and Seriousness of Offense

10
Name: X
Court No:

Understanding

What is the name of the offense you are charged with?

"Discharge of an illegal weapon. I don't know if they charged me with it. I think they
charged me but I don't know if there is a case. My attorney never brought it up again. I
was in a group home and I felt like I couldn't breathe so I left the group home and they
gave me a warrant."

Knows offense charged.

Appreciation

Would people consider that a serious offense or not so serious? Why?

"Not really serious." Why? "Because it can't really harm you."

Appreciates degree of
seriousness.

Tell me an offense (or something someone could do) that would be less serious than that. Why?

"I don't know. Fighting? Pushing somebody." Why? "'cause they gonna think you a
bully."

Tell me one that is more serious. Why?

"Killing someone." Why? "'cause they'd be over with."

Appreciates degree of
seriousness.

(2) Nature and Purpose of the Juvenile Court Trial

Understanding

11
Name: X
Court No:

When young people are charged with offenses, often they have to go to hearings in the juvenile
court, usually before a judge. One of those hearings is called a “trial.” What happens in a trial in
juvenile court? What is the purpose of it?

"I went to trial and I got an illegal search. I was supposed to go to trial but I took probation
instead. It basically means fighting for your case." What does your attorney do in a trial?
"She fights for me with the judge and the DA. They don't have to fight the witnesses." What
does the judge do in a trial? "They listen to the attorneys and they decide if you're free or
whether you go back to trial and complete the fifth. You would still have to go back to court
for it." But what does the judge decide? "If you stay."

Note: On this item I noted the questions I asked but I had to ask the questions multiple times
due to a lack of understanding and focus on the part of the minor.

Knows court
decides not guilty or
guilt, and penalties.

Appreciation

Imagine your school principal calls you in to tell you that you did something wrong. How is that
the same or different from a trial in court?

"If you're a minor and you go to trial you have to have your parent with you. As an adult you
wouldn't need a parent or guardian." Is there anything a judge can do that a principal can't
do? "They can contact the judge and ask them stuff." Is there anything a judge can do that a
principal can't do? "The judge can do anything. The principal can do anything. He can press
charges."

Appreciates some
essential
difference.

(3) Possible Pleas

Understanding

12
Name: X
Court No:

Before a juvenile court trial, defendants are asked whether they plead “guilty” (“admit to the
offense”) or “not guilty” (“don’t admit to the offense”). What does “pleading guilty” (“admitting
to the offense”) mean?

"It means that you lied about the whole situation." How does pleading guilty mean you lied?
"You could be sure or you could not be telling the truth."

Understands admits to
charges.
Appreciation

What will happen at court if you plead “guilty”? If you plead “not guilty”?

Guilty: "Send you about your way." Explain more. "He let's you be free."

Not Guilty: "They going to have to make it a case."

Appreciates
consequences
(e.g., go to trial if
plead not
guilty).

If you actually did the thing the police say you did, can you plead not guilty? Why (not)?

"Yes." Why? "'cause I plead the 5th." What does "plead the 5th" mean? "I don't know. I
forgot."

Appreciates difference
between the act and a legal
assertion of “not guilty.”

(4) Guilt and Punishment/Penalties

Understanding

What things could happen to you if a juvenile court judge found you guilty?

"Probation or parole." What's the difference? "Parole they can just search you. Probation
they can't just search you." Anything else a judge could do to you? "Send me back to my
county juvenile hall."

13
Name: X
Court No:

Examples reasonable for

level of offenses
charged and juvenile or
criminal jurisdiction.
Appreciation

What do you think is the worst thing the juvenile court could do if you are found guilty? Why
would that be the worst thing?

"Jail." Why? "Because you can't get out of there. You pleaded the 5th and you on lock
down."

Appreciates
consequences of
penalty.

(5) Role of the Prosecutor

Understanding

Every juvenile court trial has a prosecutor [or district attorney]. What is a prosecutor? [What
does a prosecutor do? What is the job of the prosecutor?]

"The DA is basically against you. Some DA's be with you but sometimes not." What are they
trying to do? "They don't want you free." How is is the DA "against you?" "I don't know."
After first teaching trial: "They give evidence to the judge to prove my point and their half of
the story." After second teaching trial: "They try to prove that I'm guilty and give evidence to
the judge."

Understands adversarial
role.

Appreciation

At a trial, is the prosecutor more likely to be telling the defendant’s view of what happened or
the police officers’ view? Why is that?

14
Name: X
Court No:

"Both." Why? "Because they got the whole system." How? "I don't know. It depends." On
what? "Certain DA's are different."

Able to apply the

adversarial concept.

Teaching: [Explained to youth that the prosecutor (a) is a lawyer, who (b) tries to prove that the
defendant did what is charged, by (c) offering evidence to prove it.]

(6) Role of the Juvenile Defense Lawyer

Understanding

Now let’s talk about the defense lawyer in juvenile court. Remember, when you are in court, you
are called the “defendant.” Defendants are allowed to have a lawyer called a defense lawyer.
What is a defense lawyer? [What does a defense lawyer do? What’s the defense lawyer’s job?]

"She ties to prove my half of the story by saying everything I told her." After one teaching
trial: "She tries to prove what I did by giving the judge information." After two teaching trials:
"She tells them I'm not guilty and tries to prove her point by giving evidence to the judge."

Understands advocacy
nature of counsel.

Teaching: [Explain to youth that the defense lawyer (a) is a lawyer who works with the
defendant, (b) helps the defendant through the legal process, and (c) takes the defendant’s side in
court.]

Appreciation

What are some ways in which a juvenile defense lawyer might help a defendant?

15
Name: X
Court No:

"She talks to her supervisor and she's says what I need." How does she help you at trial?: "She
tells my case to the judge."

Answers consistent with

counsel as advocate.

Imagine that your defense lawyer said to you, “I want you to tell me what happened the night
you were arrested.” Why would the lawyer want to know that?

"She would use it in court to get me situated." What do you mean? "By law she has to show all
information." How? "By pleading the 5th and try to show you what I need." Tell me more. "She
would say whatever she says."

Appreciates use of the

information to assist in
defense, not to incriminate.

(7) Role of the Probation Officer

Understanding

You have a juvenile probation officer, is that true? What does a probation officer do?

"They supposed to help you get out of here." What about in the community? "Making sure
I'm alright." Anything else? "That's about it.'

Understands P.O.’s case

management role.

Appreciation

In a trial, how would your probation officer be different from your lawyer?

16
Name: X
Court No:

"They support me." How? "I don't know."

Appreciates differences
in advocacy role.

(8) Role of the Juvenile Court Judge

Understanding

Every juvenile court has a judge. What is a judge? [What does a judge do? What is job of the
judge?]

"They listen to me and the attorneys." What does the judge decide? "Whether I leave or not."

Understands judge hears

evidence and decides case
and penalties

Appreciation

How is the judge different from the prosecutor and the defense attorney?

"I don't know." What does the judge decide? "Whether I leave or not." Do the attorneys
decide that? "Yeah. They decide too."

Appreciates impartiality and

ultimate authority of judge.

When you first come to court and you walk in the courtroom, will the judge know
whether you’re guilty or not? Why?

"Yeah." Why? "She will just send me home because I'm not guilty."

17
Name: X
Court No:

Appreciates judge hears

evidence in order to
decide guilt/innocence.

In juvenile court, if the judge said you must tell the court whether or not you did what the police
said, what would you do? Why?

"I would answer the question." Why? "Because I'm trying to get up out of here."

Appreciates judge
cannot order defendants
to testify about
themselves.
(9) Assisting the Defense Attorney

Understanding

Do you have a lawyer? (If yes) Who is that?

“Yes. I forgot.”

What are some things you can think of that you might do in order to help your lawyer to defend
you?

"I don't know. I want her help before I get her to do anything." Do you think telling her
information would help? "Yeah, it would be helpful."

Understands role of
defendant in
collaborating with
lawyer.

Appreciation

Imagine a defendant just didn’t want to talk to the lawyer. Why could that be a problem?

“Because she didn't get the information.”

18
Name: X
Court No:

Appreciates defendant
as source of information
for lawyer and defense.

What do you think of your attorney?

“She's cool." What would you do if you disagreed with her? "I asked for another
attorney." Anything else you would do? "No. I wouldn't talk anymore.”

(10) Plea Bargains/Agreements

Understanding

Sometimes defendants in juvenile court have to make decisions about plea bargains. [Substitute
“plea agreement” throughout following if preferred. May substitute “deal” if you establish in
context of following question that a “plea bargain” is a “deal.”]

What is a plea bargain?

"So it won't be hard for both sides." After 1 teaching trial. "I sue and the DA…I don't
know." After two teaching trials: "I plead not guilty and the DA says I'm guilty." After
three teaching trials: "I plead not guilty to the judge and then I'm not guilty."

Understands the idea of

getting potentially less
penalty in return for a guilty
plea. – After 3 teaching trials

Teaching: [I explained to youth that this involves a prosecutor telling the defendant’s lawyer that
if the defendant will plead guilty, (a) the prosecutor will do something good in return, like agree
to a lighter punishment, and (b) there will not be a trial . . . the defendant will be found guilty. If
defendant turns down the offer, there is a trial and the prosecutor will try to prove guilt, which
could lead to a heavier sentence.]

Appreciation

19
Name: X
Court No:

Why is turning down a plea bargain sort of like gambling or taking a chance?

"When you have a DA you're supposed to gamble." Q "No."

Appreciates the risk

involved.

Why would a prosecutor offer a lighter sentence if you plead guilty?

"Nothing."

Appreciates the nature

of a trade-off
(bargaining).

Re-Testing for Retention (after 30 minutes)

NOTE: The final part of the interview involves returning to any of the three Capacity Check
items that needed to be administered to the youth. (This might be 1, 2, 3 or none depending on
whether the youth needed to be “taught” any of these during the interview.) The purpose is to
determine whether the youth’s understanding has been retained across the length of the
assessment. This helps one to determine whether the youth can benefit by being taught concepts
that he or she does not at first understand. For each Capacity Check item that the youth needed
to be given, repeat the Capacity Check question (but not the “teaching” portion).

Responses:

#1: Prosecutor: "They prevent me from being in custody and for them to sue because I'm wasn't
supposed to get an illegal search and to talk about your case."

#2: Juvenile Defense Lawyer: "They help sue."

#3: Plea Bargain: "I don't remember."

20
Name: X
Court No:

Note: I checked the boxes for which, in my opinion, the minor demonstrated an adequate
understanding or appreciation of the concept. However, the ultimate decision lies with the court
as to whether his answers were adequate. For this reason, I have included the minor’s actual
statements for review.

DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS:

Unspecified Psychotic Disorder

Unspecified Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorder

SUMMARY

According to the records provided, the minor has significant difficulty controlling her anger and
behavior. However, the minor’s diagnosis is somewhat unclear due the complexity of the case.
The records noted extremely dysregulated behavior and mood, and psychotic symptoms. In my
opinion, given the minor’s difficulty with anger for many years, the minor appears to meet
criteria for a Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorder. However, there is not enough
information to make a definitive diagnosis, which is why it is listed as “Unspecified.” It is also
possible that her behavioral or emotional problems are due to a Bipolar Disorder but without
further evaluation, this is unclear. Even though psychotic symptoms were not reported or
observed during the present evaluation, there appears to be enough evidence in record of
psychosis to warrant a diagnosis of a Psychotic Disorder. Due to the lack of information, this is
also listed as “Unspecified.” The testing also revealed significant problems with both intellectual
functioning and reading. No diagnosis was listed to account for these results because a more
thorough evaluation is needed and it is unclear how much her scores were due to truancy rather
than a specific disorder.

The minor presented as cooperative but somewhat withdrawn. Based on her consistent effort
through the two-hour evaluation and attempting to give answers on the JACI, even when she was
not sure, it is my opinion that she gave good effort throughout the evaluation. Her eye contact
was fair and her mood was constricted. She is considered to be an adequate historian because her
report of the circumstances about her case was consistent with the information in the record.
However, her understanding of the circumstances of her case was very limited. She had
difficulty expressing herself and did not seem to understand some of the words she was using
such as “plead the 5th.” When asked about what this meant to her she was unable to give a

21
Name: X
Court No:

definition. It should be noted that while she was cooperative during the 2-hours I spent with her,
at the end of this 2-hour period she was unwilling to continue with the interview. She stated that
she was tired of talking with me. For this reason, the background history will be presented from
the approximately 150 pages of records I was provided.

As can be seen by her responses to the JACI, the minor was able to grasp few of the concepts
relating to the juvenile justice system. She was able to explain a few concepts but these
explanations were considered to be very limited. On the teaching items, she was able to repeat
back to me the explanation of the roles of the Defense Attorney and the Prosecutor. However,
she was not able to repeat back the explanation of a plea bargain. Further, she was not able to
remember these explanations after 30 minutes. Many of the items had to be repeated and re-
worded, and clarifying questions had to be asked. As can be seen on the JACI, her answers were
very difficult to understand and her explanations of her own comments did not serve to clarify or
explain her thinking. Her attorney reported that she had significant difficulty convincing the
minor to cooperate with her in preparing her defense and she had significant difficulty
explaining things to her. I had a similar experience and found it very difficult to understand the
minor’s explanations. Thus, in considering the totality of the evidence presented in this report, it
is my opinion that the minor is NOT competent to stand trial.

REFERRAL QUESTIONS:

a. Does the minor have a mental disorder? If so, what is the specific diagnosis? How is
functioning affected?

I have diagnosed her with Unspecified Psychotic Disorder and Unspecified Disruptive,
Impulse-Control and Conduct Disorder. These diagnoses are tentative due to a lack of
information and the need for further evaluation. She also may qualify for a learning
and/or intellectual disorder after further evaluation. These conditions significantly affect
her emotional, behavioral, social, intellectual and academic functioning.

b. Is the minor mentally retarded or developmentally disabled? If so, to what degree? How is
functioning affected?

Possible. The minor scored in the Extremely Low to Low range on the subtests of the
WAIS-IV that were given and may qualify for a diagnosis of Intellectual Disability if
determined after further evaluation.

22
Name: X
Court No:

c. Is the minor developmentally immature?

Yes. The minor exhibits delays in her ability to regulate her emotions and control her
behavior and these delays are so severe that they currently render her incompetent.

d. (If a, b, or c applies) Is the minor capable of understanding the nature of the delinquency
proceedings? (Explain why or why not.)

No. The minor has a poor factual and rational understanding of the nature of the
delinquency proceedings. See JACI for specific answers.

e. (If a, b, or c applies) Is the minor capable of assisting his/her counsel in the conduct of the
defense in a rational manner? (Explain why or why not.)

The minor generally understands that her attorney is there to help her and stated that she
would help her attorney because she is on her side. However, based on her history, there
is a strong possibility that the minor may have an emotional outburst and refuse to
cooperate with her attorney. In addition, it does not appear that the minor has the
cognitive capacity to rationally assist her attorney in the conduct of the defense. Thus, it
is my opinion that the minor is NOT competent to stand trial.

f. Assessment for ALTA Regional Center Services.

Based on the results of the evaluation a referral for evaluation by ALTA staff IS
recommended so that she can receive more thorough intellectual assessment.

Thank you for the referral of X for my evaluation. I trust this information will assist you in the
processing of her case in an effective manner. Please contact me if I can be of other assistance.

Respectfully,

23
Name: X
Court No:

Frank D. Weber, Ph.D., ABPP

Clinical and Forensic Psychologist
PSY 16861

24