In a troubling turn of events, the Los Angeles County criminal courts have become the stage for what appears to be a serious breakdown in due process. On February 14, 2024, Deputy Public Defender Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell repurposed a psychological evaluation originally conducted for mental health diversion (Penal Code §1001.36) into a formal competency assessment under Penal Code §730—*without a declared doubt to the defendant's competency and without a court order in place.*
The evaluation, performed by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo, was treated as legal evidence of incompetency, despite being completed before any judicial finding of doubt had been made. Most alarmingly, the assessment reportedly contained private, constitutionally protected religious views the defendant shared in confidence with his attorney—communications that were then disclosed to the evaluator without any documented waiver of privilege.
What followed raises serious questions about the integrity of the process. Despite the absence of an official court order authorizing the evaluation, Judge Suzette Louise Clover, just weeks from retirement, accepted it as legitimate. Even more baffling: the report stated it was conducted pursuant to a minute order dated **October 2, 2024**—a date still in the future at the time. How could a doctor cite a nonexistent order from a future date? Why was jurisdiction transferred to mental health court **before** a proper evaluation or hearing?
This legal shortcut raises a deeper concern about systemic failures: how could a judge, public defender, and appointed doctor all participate in a competency proceeding with **no judicial order**? Unless ex parte communication occurred behind closed doors, the answer remains troublingly unclear.
To make matters worse, Ms. Daroca-Bell reportedly advised her client to accept a second opinion evaluation **without ever letting him review the first**, a move that undermines basic fairness and transparency. And Judge Clover, despite knowing no order existed and that privileged information had been shared, never once demanded proof of a waiver.
The defendant’s private email—containing nonviolent critiques of the Catholic Church—was effectively used against him as evidence of incompetency. This is not just a breach of attorney-client trust; it’s a red flag for the misuse of mental health assessments to bypass due process.
This case deserves more than a quiet dismissal as courtroom error—it calls for a public conversation about transparency, ethical responsibility, and the rule of law. If legal procedures designed to protect the rights of vulnerable defendants are being ignored or manipulated, the implications extend far beyond this one case.
The public deserves answers. And justice demands them.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment