DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman told a homicide defendant’s attorney he’d consider their argument that he is not mentally competent to stand trial during a July 1 hearing.
Daniel Simon, 44, is charged with second-degree murder and carrying a pistol without a license for his alleged involvement in the fatal beating of Michael Jones, 52, on the 200 block of 15th Street, NW, on Jan. 4, 2023.
Simon’s attorney, Molly Bunke, challenged the prior testimony of an expert who testified on April 24. The specialist, a licensed clinical psychologist, found Simon mentally competent to stand trial.
Bunke reviewed the Dusky Standard, which establishes that a defendant can only be found competent if they have a factual, rational understanding of the case against them, and an ability to consult with counsel.
Bunke argued that Simon doesn’t meet any of these standards, much less all three, and is “unrestorable” — meaning that it is highly unlikely he would be able to meet these standards. She also mentioned that Simon’s two previous attorneys had raised similar concerns about his competency.
She noted that Simon is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and is actively psychotic, as seen in medical records. Bunke stated that Simon still experiences “delusional thought,” even though he has been on medication and other symptoms have improved. She also challenged the expert’s characterization of Simon as having a “lack of effort,” when that can be a symptom of schizophrenia.
Bunke further stated that Simon had to be tutored on many aspects of the court proceedings in mental evaluations, and he was unable to remember what he had learned.
In a previous behavioral evaluation, it was determined that Simon did not believe there was a criminal case against him, further evidence of delusional thought. Simon had also repeated this sentiment to a third expert in a separate evaluation, and asked Bunke to investigate a “stolen identity.”
A specialist in brain function who had testified on June 29, performed several cognitive tests on Simon, concluding that he had “cognitive deficits” and cerebral dysfunction in the frontal lobes. The tests also indicated that Simon was not “malingering, “a term which refers to the intentional overstatement or fabrication of symptoms.
Bunke accused the first expert of having “spoon-fed” Simon answers in her evaluation, without providing evidence that Simon understood the content of their discussion. In one such instance, the expert had asked Simon if he believed in a conspiracy about the case, which Simon denied. Bunke stated this is because he believes his delusions to be fact.
Bunke was “baffled” by the expert’s findings, believing them to be based on “very limited information.” Notably, the expert had not met with Bunke. She also found it “troubling” that the expert had claimed to testify at something she hadn’t.
Bunke concluded that Simon is not currently competent and there is no likelihood he will attain competency. She asked for a Jackson finding, referring to the landmark Jackson v. Indiana case, in which The Supreme Court found that the prosecution could not indefinitely keep defendants in mental institutions if they are unlikely to regain competency.
In response, the prosecutor stated that Simon’s previous attorneys had raised concerns of his competency very early, when he was unhoused and unmedicated. He argued against a standard of needing to consult with attorneys to determine a defendant’s competency, claiming that Simon did not have a relationship with his attorneys.
The prosecutor stated that it’s important to view things from Simon’s perspective, arguing that what is rational to him is based on his life and experiences. Judge Edelman challenged this, claiming that there has to be “objective rationality.”
The prosecutor continued, claiming that little is known about Simon and his past, and when he first interacted with the court in 2012, the primary focus became his competency. He suggested Simon may not have an understanding of the American court system, as he may not be native to the United States. Judge Edelman asked the prosecutor if it is “rational” for Simon to believe there isn’t a court case against him when he has been brought to jail and court for several years. The prosecutor said it could be. What can Simon think is happening, Judge Edelman asked, as a “competent person?”
The prosecutor argued that competence is a “fluid concept,” and Simon only needs “the basics” to be found competent.
The prosecutor also claimed that the psychologist who previously testified has known Simon for three years, longer than “any of us,” and is an independent party. He referenced her recent report as claiming that Simon had been able to identify the charges against him and evidence, in testimony that the prosecutor characterized as “frankly great.”
He suggested that Simon doesn’t “care to engage” and is making a “volitional choice” not to make effort. The prosecutor alleged that the previous two experts who’d evaluated Simon had not challenged him enough and didn’t try to “meet him where he was,” noting that one expert only met with the defendant for 26 minutes.
Mental exams have shown improvement, the prosecutor said. He stated that the only attempts to educate Simon have been in the mental evaluations. Nonetheless, he claimed Simon’s trajectory is “only upward,” and that this is the first time to their knowledge that Simon had been consistently medicated. The psychologist noted him attending more groups and appearing more kempt in her most recent evaluation.
The prosecutor also argued that Bunke overstated the importance of cognitive tests, which neglect to take biographical context into account.
The prosecutor claimed that this is not a “complex case,” and Simon has demonstrated “basic but adequate” rational knowledge and is aware of “a lot of things about his case.” He also stated that Simon has “no incentive” to be found competent in this case.
In response to these points, Bunke stated that she was offended by the prosecutor using Simon’s background to hold him to a lower level of competence. The prosecution, she said, had an “alarmingly” low level of the mental competency requirement.
She reiterated that there is no testimony of any attempts by the psychologist to meet with defense counsel, and that there is no evidence either of the two other experts not meeting Simon “where he was,” or were motivated to make a finding one way or another. Bunke claimed that the cognitive tests offer important details on Simon’s “unrestorability,” and that his upward trajectory is all in non-competency categories.
Bunke also claimed that Simon wants to be found competent as he believes himself to be. She also noted that there is a difference between Simon knowing what he’s charged with and believing there is a legitimate case against him.
Bunke pleaded with Judge Edelman to find him incompetent and unrestorable.
Parties are slated to reconvene on July 10, in which Judge Edelman will provide a ruling of competency.
