People of the Virgin Islands v. Jamal Joseph

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: February 24, 2021
• Docket: SX-19-CR-11
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST CROIX

Case No SX 19 $11011 Charges 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Murder First Degree 14 V I C § 922(a)(2) Murder First Degree PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 14 V I C § 2253(a) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm During the PI ANTI”, Commission of a Crime of Violence V 14 V I C § 295(1) and 16 V I C § 91(b)(l&2) Assault First Degree/Domestic Violence JAMAL JOSEPH 14 V I C § 2256(a) Possession or Sale of Ammunition DFFF‘DANT 14 V I C § 297(2) and 16 v I C § 91(b)(1&2) Assault Third Degree/Domestic Violence 23 V I C § 479(d) Discharging or Aiming Firearms

CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER 3}?

Appearances Eric Chancellor, Esq Department of Justice Christiansted U S Vilgin Islands For Plaintiff

Yolan Brow Ross, Esq Office of the Territorial Public Defender Kingshill U S Virgin Islands For Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLOCKS Presiding Judge

‘11 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court for a competency hearing on February 28 2020

and October 22 2020 for the determination of Defendant Jamal 0 Joseph 5 (hereinaftex

Defendant ) competency to stand trial People QM“: Virgin Alandn JamalO Joseph SX 19 CR ()1 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 231’ Page 2 01 17

BACKGROUND

(II 2 On or about January 12 2019 Defendant was arrested in connection with the alleged

shooting and killing of his brother Allan Joseph On or about January 25 2019 the People of the

Virgin Islands (hereinafter Peopie ) filed an information charging Defendant with the following

seven counts Count One Murder in the First Degree in violation of Titie 14 V I C § 922(a)(1)

Count Two Murder in the First Degree in vioiation of Title 14 V I C § 922(a)(2) Count Three

Unauthoxized Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime of Violence in violation

of Titie 14 V IC § 2253(a) Count Pout Assault in the First Degree/Domestic Violence in

violation of Title 14 V I C § 295(1) and Titie 16 V I C § 91(b)(1&2) Count Five Possession or

Sale of Ammunition in violation of Title 14 V 1 C § 2256(a) Count Six Assault in the Third

Degree/Domestic Violence in Violation of Title 14 V I C § 297 and Title 16 V I C § 91(b)( 1&2)

and Count Seven Disehatging or Aiming a Firearm in violation of Title 23 V I C § 479(d)

‘11 3 On February 4 2019 the defense counsel filed a motion to require a psychiatric

examination and evaluation of Defendant to determine (a) Whether he was suffering from a

mental disease or defect at the time he ailegedly committed the acts with which he is being

charged and (b) Whether he is competent to stand trial for the alleged acts (Motion to Require

a Psychiatric Examination and Evaluation p 2) On February 22 2019 the Court entered an ordel

whereby the Court inter alia granted the defense counsel s motion to require a psychiatric

examination and evaluation of Defendant ordered that Defendant be given a psychiatric

examination and evaluation by the Department of Health Division of Mental Health and ordered

that the psychiatric test(s) given should determine whether Defendant is competent to stand trial

and whether Defendant was suffering from a mental disease/defect at the time the alleged offense

was committed (Feb 22 2019 Order pp 1 2) On May 21 2019 the defense counsel filed a People of the Virgin Istand: t Jamal 0 Joseph SK 1‘) CR 01 l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2-3 P Page '1 of 17

motion to submit evaluation report under seal 1 On June 10, 2019, the defense coensel filed a

motion to file motion for competency hearing under seal 1 Subsequently the evaluation ieports of

' The defense LounSel 5 one page motion to submit evaluation report under seat eonsisted 01 only two Sentences COMES NOW the Detendant JAMAL O JOQEPH and respeetlully moves this Honorable Court tor permission to submit the attached Comprehensive Psyehiatrie Evaluation under seal WHEREFORE Mr Joseph prays that this Court the within request together with sueh other and further reliel as the Court seems just and proper The Court must note that the detehee eounsel s motion to submit eValuation report under seal oniy referenced Dr E» adne Sang 5 April l9 ’0“) report titled Comprehensive Psyehiatrie E\ aluation At the time the defense eounsel filed the motion to submit evaluation report under seal Dr Leighmin 3 Lu has yet to finalize his report which is dated ()etober E4 2019 and titled ?syehiatrie Report Thus the Court Witt address the defense enumel s motion to submit evaluatiun report under seal (inky as to Dr Sang 5. evaluation report The Court has not previously ruled on the defense eounbei .5 motion to submit evaluation report under seal Rule 47th) 01 Virgin islands Rules of Criminal Proeedure provides {b) Form and Content of a Motion and Opposition A motion on an opposition exeept when made during a trial or hearing must be in writing unless the eourt permits the party to make the motion or opposition by other means it must state the Glounds on which it is based the legal authorities upon which it relies and the relief or order sought It may he supported by affidavit Any motion requesting affirmatiwe reliet should he aeeompanied by a proposed order for eXeeution by the eourt VI R CRIM P 47th) Here the defense eounsel s motion to submit Dr Sang s etaluation report untiei Seal hailed to state the grounds on whieh it is basal and the legal authorities upon whieh it relied on in Violation of Rule 47(b) 01 Virgin Islands Rules 01 Criminal Pioeedure See also!" 1e CatalutLittg 67 VI 16 n 12 (VI Super Ct 2015)( The Supieme Court oi the Virgin Islands has established that in order tor a motion to be properly before the eourt parties must support their arouments by eiting the propel legal authorin statute or rule ) Antilles School Int 1 Lembath 64 VI 400 n l? (V 1 20th) ( Members of the Viraih Islands Bar must be econilant 01 their responsihitity to serve as advoeates tor their elients whieh ineiudes making alt neeessary Eegal arguments '3 Joseph t Joseph ”025 V I LEXIS 43 *5 (V I Supei Ct Apr 2? 2015) (the Court Witt not make a movants arguments tor him when he has failed to do so) The Court will also note that while the detense eounsel moved to submit Dr Sang 5 evaluation report under seal Dr Sang was questioned extensively regarding her evaluation report at the February 28 2020 eornpeteney hearing whieh was a publie hearing Thus the eontent 01 Dr Sang 5 evaluation report was readily made publie at the February 28 2020 eompeteney hearing and is subject to publie diselosure As sueh the Court will deny the defense eounsel s motion to submit Dr Sang 5 evaluation report under seal 1 The defense eounsel 5 one pave motion to tile motion for eompetehey heating under seat eonsisted 01 only two sentenees COMES NOW the Defendant JAMAL O JOSEPH and respeettully moves this Honorable Court for permission to tile the attaehed Motion for Competeney Hearing and proposed Order under seal WHEREFORE Mr Joseph prays that this Court the within request together with such other and further reliet as the Court seems just and proper The Court has not previously luted on the defense eounsel s motion to lite motion tor competency hearing under seat Here simiiar t0 the defense eounsel s motion to submit Dr Sang 5 evaluation report under seal the defense eounsel s motion to tile motion for eompeteney heating under seal failed to state the grounds on which it is based and the legal authorities upon which it relied on in violation of Rule 47(b) of Virgin Islands Rules 01 Climinal Proeedure See supra footnote E The Court will similarly note that while the defense LounSeI mowed to tile motion for eompcteney hearing under seal the February 28 2020 eompeteney hearino was a publie hearing and the eontent of the hearing is People of the Vzrgm [clam]: I Jamal 0 Joseph sx 19 CR 011 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2 g P Page 4 0f 17

Dr Evadne Sang and Dr Leighmin .1 Lu both psychiatrist who have examined and treated

Defendant were submitted under seal 1

‘11 4 On September 27 2019 the Court entered an order whereby the Court inter alia ordered

Winnie Testamark Director of the Bureau of Corrections Justa Encamacion Commissioner of

the Depaltment of Health and Venita Bicette Director at the Division of Mental Health appear

before this Court on October 18 2019 to show cause why the Burau of Corrections and the

Department of Health Division of Mental Health should not be held in contempt of Court for

violating the Court 3 June 20 2019 and July 29 2019 Orders (Sep 27 2019 Order p 2) The

Court explained in its September 27 2019 order

THIS MATTER is before the Court for Status on June 20 2019 Mr Joseph is presently in the custody of the Bureau of Corrections and has been so held since his arrest on January 12 2019 At the request of defense counsel Mr Joseph underwent a psychiatric evaluation which was performed by Dr Evadne Sang on April 9 2019 Defense counsel moved for a competency hearing on June 10 2019 In a status hearing held on June 20 2019 the Court determined Dr Sang 5 report to be insufficient for purposes of a competency hearing Therefore the Court ordered that another evaluation be done and report submitted and scheduled the competency hearing for July 29 2019 On July 29 2019 the parties appeared but the competency hearing could not proceed because Mr Joseph had not been reevaluated The Court ordered that the Bureau of Corrections must complete and submit the reevaluation within thirty (30) days The Court further rescheduled the competency hearing for September 6 2019 and ordered the psychiatrist responsible for the ieevaluation appear on said date On September 6 2019 the parties appeared for the competency hearing Yet again the competency hearing could not proceed because Mr Joseph had not been reevaluated (Id at pp 1 2)

On February 28 2020 this matter came before the Court for a competency hearing whereby the

People 5 witnesses Dr Sang and Dr Lu testified

subject to public disclosure As such the Court will deny the defense counsel 5 motion to tile motion for competent.) hearing under seal 3 The defense counsel never filed a motion to submit Dr Lu 5 evaluation report under seal See supra footnote 1 People of the Vugm Islands i Jamal 0 Joseph 9X 19 CR 01 l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 3} P Page 5 0t 17

(II 5 Dr Sang testified inter alia that she has seen Defendant seven or eight times and based on

her examination of Defendant and Defendant 5 mental status examination it is her opinion that

Defendant is competent to stand trial More specifically Dr Sang testified that Defendant has the

ability (i) to understand the nature of the charges pending against him (ii) to understand the nature

and purpose of the comt proceeding (iii) to understand his own position in this court pioceeding

as the defendant (iv) to understand the role of his attorney and the ioles of others in the couitroom

like the Judge the prosecuting attorney and the witnesses (v) to understand the gravity of the

charges against him (vi) to understand the possible outcome or verdict in the case (vii) to

understand his legal rights (viii) to testify to matters relevant or irrelevant (ix) to assist coopeiate

and advise his counsel with pertinent facts surrounding the offence and the presentation of his

defense and (x) to accept the advice of his counsel However Dr Sang also testified that (i) her

report did not indicate that she made any inquiries into Defendant s ability to understand the nature

of the charges the role of the people in the courtroom like the Judge the prosecuting attorney his

attorney (ii) her report indicated that Defendant was fully oriented when last examined on April

9 2019 to person place or time but not situation (iii) Defendant not being oriented to the situation

affects his capacity to understand his legal circumstances (iv) her report indicated that Defendant

was unable to accept the fact that he is being charged with the shooting of his brother (v) her

report indicated that she believes Defendant is competent to stand trial when last examined on

April 9 2019 but Defendant could decompensate at any time (vi) her report indicated that

Defendant was unable to process what happened with his brother or any part he may have played

in that (vii) it is her diagnosis that Defendant has a dissociative disorder which to this day prevents

him from grasping what happened with his brother (viii) to this day Defendant does not know

what happened during the alleged events (ix) given that Defendant could not recall what occurred People ofrhe Virgin Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph 9X 19 CR 0] l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER ’23 P Page 6 0t 17

or what did not occur at the time of the alleged events under those circumstances Defendant does

not have the capacity to stand trial (x) according to her diagnostic tests Defendant is suffering

from drug induced psychosis dissociative amnesia and acute dissociative reaction immature

personality (xi) Defendant is still not clear with what happened at the time of the alleged events

and has given several conflicting explanations (xii) there is no tieatment that can be done with

respect to the amnesia (xiii) she examined and interviewed Defendant and came to the conclusion

that Defendant has the ability to assist his counsel and described her examination and interview

process (xiv) she was able to effectiVely communicate with Defendant in all her interviews (xv)

during her interviews with Defendant Defendant consistently stated that he did not kill his brother

(xvi) during her third interview with Defendant Defendant stated that it could not have been him

that killed his biother because he loves his brother too much and (xvii) during her interviews with

Defendant she did not ask Defendant specific questions regarding his understanding of the role of

the court the judge his lawyei and the prosecutor however she did ask Defendant similar

questions and concluded that Defendant understands the role of the court the judge his lawyer

and the prosecutor 4

(ll 6 Dr Lu testified inter alia that he has seen Defendant five times and it is his opinion that

under the strict criteria‘ to determine whether a person is competent Defendant is seventy five to

4 Dr Sana asked Detendant about Defendant s attorney to which Defendant responded that he talked to his attorney and that he was not going to be found Guilty because he did nothing wrong and his fingerprints were not found on anything Based on this Dr Sang determined that Detendant understands the role of his lawyer and the court Dr Sang asked Defendant about whether he thou0ht he would be charged with anything by any attorney to which Defendant responde no Based on this Dr Sang determined that Defendant understands the role oi the prosecutor ‘ According to D1 Lu the strict criteria involVes the person having a reasonable understanding oi the (actual charges against him knowing how it happened being able to talk about it knowing the expected court proceeding being able to cooperate in the courtroom People ofrhe Vugm Islcmdt t Jamal 0 Joseph

2:53:31: Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Page 7 0t 17

eighty percent or marginally competent to stand trial and under the loose criteria6 to determine

whether a person is competent Defendant is competent to stand trial More specifically Dr Lu

testified that (i) Defendant knows his attorney by name (ii) Defendant did not quite understand

what the competency hearing was for (iii) Defendant was calm lucid and coherent when Dr Lu

mentioned the competency hearing (iv) Defendant is no longer hearing voices or unusual

perception vision 01 that kind of psychotic symptoms (v) his diagnosis of Defendant was that he

suffered from Bipolar Type 1 with Paranoid Psychotic Feature Substance Abuse Disorder and

ruled out dissociative amnestic reaction (vi) he agrees with Dr Sang that Defendant suffers from

dissociated amnesia but disagrees to the cause of the amnesia Dr Lu believes it is marijuana

induced (vii) his conclusion is that Defendant s visions and hallucinations is induced by an illness

bipolai disorder and marijuana use aggravates the symptoms (viii) Defendant sometimes

remember talking to his brothel that morning but sometimes he doesn t remembei talking to his

brother that he sometimes remember talking to his brother in the car but sometimes he denies

talking to his brother that he remembers being in his yard caring fox his plants when he heard

skydiving people coming down from the sky sometimes a bunch of them landed and sometimes

only two to three landed that he heard a bang bang noise and that sometimes he felt like someone

was coming to rob him so he had to defend himself

‘i[ 7 On October 22 2020 this matter came before C0uit for the completion of the competency

hearing The Court heard final arguments from both parties The defense counsel argued that case

law requires a rational and factual understanding of the charges and that Defendant is under the

perception that people fell from the sky shot and killed his brother It is also the defense counsel 5

6 According to Dr Lu the 100st criteria involves the person having an understanding of what happened at the time the person was charged or arrested knowing his Lounselor and knowing the expeeted legal proceeding People offlw v1; gm Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR ()1 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 23 P Page 8 0t l7

opinion that Defendant does not have the ability to assist her in the proceeding The People argued

that both Dr Sang and Dr Lu testified that Defendant may have some issues but still found

Defendant competent to stand trial The People also argued that if Defendant can state that he did

not do it then he can assist counsel The Court took the matter under advisement

STANDARD OF REVIEW

118 {Ht is well settled that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due

process Gmemment 0f the Vugznlslandm Durant 49 VI 366 376m 12(V I 2008) (internal

citation omitted) The standard for determining the menta1 competency of a criminal defendant is

whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree

of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the

proceedings against him People of the V1; gm Islands 1 Joseph 63 VI 104 110 (Super Ct

July 21 2015) (quoting Dusk» 1 United States 362US 402 402 808 Ct 788 4L Ed 2d 824

(1960)) see also People (gfthe Virgm Islands t Webster 2019 V I Super l75U (ll 14 (Super Ct

December 17 2019) In determining whether a defendant is competent to stand ttial court[s]

must examine the unique circumstances of the case and decide whether the defendant (1) has the

capacity to assist in her or his own defense and (2) comprehends the nature and possible

consequences of a trial Joseph 63 V I at 110 (quoting United States 1 Brown 2015 U S Dist

LEXIS 45664 at 7 8 (E D Pa Apr 8 2015) (citing United States 1 Jones 336 F 3d 245 256

(3d Cit 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted)) Courts examine the evidence of a

defendant 3 irrational behavior his demeanor at trial and any prior medical opinion on competence

to stand trial Joseph 63 VI at 110 (quoting Bram: 2015 U S Dist LEXIS 45664 at J‘7 8

(quoting Jones 336 F 3d at 256 and United State? v Leggett 162 F 3d 237 242 (3d Cir 1998») People offlze Vungslands » JamalO Joseph 9X 19 CR 01 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 28 ? Page 9 of 17

‘l[ 9 The People have the burden of proving a defendant 5 competency to stand trial by a

preponderance of the evidence Joseph 63 V I at 1 10 (quoting People of the Vzrgm Islands v

Hymn: 2012 V I LEXIS 33 at *5 6 (V I Super Ct July 30 2012)) see also Webster 2019 V I

Super 175U at ‘11 14 The trial judge is afforded considerable discretion in evaluating and weighing

the testimony presented at the competency hearing Joseph 63 V I at 1 10 see Brown 2015 U S

Dist LEXIS 45664 at 4‘33 34 (the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility of

experts is permitted to assign greater weight to some opinions over others or altogethel

reject certain expert opinions ) (see e g Unztea’ States v Chane 490 F 3d 1036 1040 (8th Cir

2007) ( stating that [a] district court may rely on one of two competing competency opinions given

by qualified experts ) (internal citation omitted) United States 1 Mallow» 717 F 3d 257 264 66

(1st Cir 2013) ( holding that the district court did not err by relying on the testimony of one expert

and its own observations rather than on the testimony of anothei expert ))

DISCUSSION

1 Pre Trial Determination of Defendant’s Competency to Stand Trial

‘1[ 10 In applying the aforementioned standard for determining whether a criminal Defendant is

competent to stand tiial the Court concludes that Defendant is not competent to stand trial

‘11 11 First based on the testimony of Dr Sang and Dr Lu the Court finds that Defendant does

not have the capacity to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational

understanding or to assist in his own defense As noted above Dr Sang testified that (1) her report

indicated that Defendant was fully oriented when last examined on Apiii 9 2019 to person place

or time but not situation and Defendant not being oriented to the situation affects his capacity to

understand his legal circumstances (2) her report indicated that Defendant was unable to process

what happened with his brother or any part he may have played in that (3) it is her diagnosis that People (lffhé’ Virgin Islam“ 1 Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR OI I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPERZgF Page 10 0t 17

Defendant has a dissociative disorder which to this day ptevents him from grasping what happened

with his brother (4) to this day Defendant does not know what happened during the alleged events

and (5) Defendant is still not clear with what happened at the time of the alleged events and has

given several conflicting explanations Dr Lu testified that Defendant sometimes remember

talking to his brother that morning but sometimes he doesn t remember talking to his brother that

he sometimes remember talking to his brothel in the car but sometimes he denies talking to his

brother that he remembers being in his yard caring for his plants when he heard skydiving people

coming down from the sky sometimes a bunch of them landed and sometimes only two to three

landed that he heard a bang bang noise and that sometimes he felt like someone was coming to

rob him so he had to defend himself Thus the Court cannot conclude from Dr Sang or D1 Lu s

testimony that Defendant has the capacity to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degiee of

rational understanding or to assist in his own defense

<11 12 Second based on the testimony of Dr Sang and Dr Lu the Court finds that Defendant

does not have the capacity to have a factual understanding of the proceedings against him or to

comprehend the nature and possible consequences of a trial Dr Sang testified that during her

interviews with Defendant she did not ask Defendant specific questions regarding his

understanding of the role of the court the judge his lawyer and the prosecutor Instead she asked

Defendant similar questions and concluded that Defendant understands the role of the court the

judge his lawyer and the prosecutor 7 However without more the Court is unpersuaded that just

because when asked about his attorney Defendant responded that he talked to his attorney and that

he was not going to be found guilty because he did nothing wrong and his fingerprints were not

7 See supra iootnote 4 People ofrlze V11 gm Islandt t Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR 0|! Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2 g? Page I l of 17

found on anything it meant that Defendant understands the role of his attorney and the Court

especially in light of Dr Sang s testimony as a whole at the competency hearing Similarly without

moxe the Court is unpersuaded that just because when asked about whether he thought he would

be charged with anything by any attorney Defendant responded no it meant that Defendant

understands the role of the prosecutor especially in light of Dr Sang s testimony as a whole at the

competency hearing Dr Lu testified that Defendant knew his attorney by name but Defendant

did not quite understand what the competency hearing was for Also it is unclear whether Dr Lu

asked Defendant specific questions regarding his understanding of the role of the court the judge

his lawyer and the prosecutor Thus the Court cannot conclude from Dr Sang or Dr Lu s

testimony that Defendant understands the roles of the individuals involved in the proceedings

against him and thereby the Court cannot conclude that Defendant has the capacity to have a

factual undeistanding 0f the proceedings against him or to comprehend the nature and possible

consequences of a trial

(II 13 Third white the People pointed out that Dr Sang concluded that Defendant is competent

to stand trial the People failed to mention that after questioning by the Court Dr Sang testified

that under the circumstances that Defendant could not recall what occurred or what did not OCCUI

at the time of the alleged events Defendant does not have the capacity to stand trial

(II 14 Finally while the People pointed out that Dr Lu concluded that Defendant is competent to

stand trial the People failed to specify that Dr Lu concluded that Defendant is only marginally

competent under the strict criteria which involves the person having a reasonable understanding

of the factual charges against him knowing how it happened being able to talk about it knowing

the expected court proceeding being able to cooperate in the courtroom Additionally as noted

above it is unclear whether Dr Lu specifically inquired about the specific factors to determine People ofthe Vlfglll Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph SK 19 CR 01 1 Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Page 12 01 I7

IegaI competency In light of Dr Sang and Dr Lu e testimony as a whole at the competency

hearing the Court cannot conclude that Defendant is competent to strand trial

‘I[ 15 Based on the fowgoing the Court concludes that the People has not met the burden of

proving Defendant s competency to stand trial by a prepondeiance of the evidence See Joseph 63

VI at 110 (The trial judge is afforded considerable discretion in evaluating and weighing the

testimony presented at the competency hearing)“ see Bromz 2015 U S Dist LEXIS 45664 at *33

34 (the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate credibility of experts is permitted to assign

greater weight to some opinions over others or altogether reject certain expert opinions )

2 Virgin Islands Law Regarding Pre Trial Determination that Defendant is not Competent to Stand Trial

‘H 16 While there is no clear cut procedure in the Virgin Islands for a criminal defendant found

not competent to stand trial before trial the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has pointed out in

Duran! that there are several substantive laws that provide for the rights of mentally incompetent

persons within the Virgin Islands Durant 49 V I at 375 n 9' see also People of the Vlrgm Islands

t Canker 2019 V I LEXIS 38 *8 (Super Ct April 4 2019) In Damn! the Virgin Islands

Supreme Court stated

Contrary to the trial court s finding 5 V I C § 3637 applies not only to persons committed to a forensic unit who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity but also to those committed otherwise in accordance with law See 5 V IC § 3637(b) Moreover Chapter 45 of Title 19 provides for the commitment and release of [a]ny patient held on order of a court having criminal jurisdiction in any action or proceeding arising out of a criminal offense 19 V IC § 1201(c) see also 19 V IC § 1202 (regulating procedure regarding mentaIly ill prisoners) Additionally Section 723 of Title 19 provides for the involuntary commitment of mentally disturbed alcoholic and drug dependent persons Durant 49 V I at 375 n 9

The Court will take guidance from Durant and address the various provisions of the Virgin Islands

Codes mentioned therein People ofrhe Vngm I slands t Jamal 0 Joseph 8X 19 CR ()l l Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Page 13 of 17

A Title 5 V I C §3637

(ll 17 Title 5 V I C § 3637 is titled Mental illness of the defendant Title 5 V I C § 3637(a)8

provides for a defendant who has been found not guilty on the ground of mental illness to be

committed to a forensic unit for custody and does not provide a procedure for a defendant found

not competent to stand trial before trial However a§ the Virgin Islands Supreme Court pointed

out in Durant Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) appliee to persons committed to a forensic unit otherwise

in accordance with law 9 Durant 49 V I at 375 n 9 see also Coaker 2019 V I LEXIS 38 at *9

( Therefore the Court finds that Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) contemplates that persons may be

confined in a forensic unit for reasons other than having been found not guilty by reason of mental

8 Title 5 V [C § 3637(a) prmides (a) Ifthe defense is the mental illness ofthe Delendanl the jury shall he instrueted it they lind him not guilt) on that ground to stale that faet in their verdiet and the eourt shall thereupon eommit the Defendant to a torensie unit tor eustody eare and treatment lrom which he shall not he diseharged until the eourt is satisfied that he has regained his eapaeity tor judgment discretion and eontrol oi the eonduet oi his allairs and soeial relations If no lorensie unil exists in the Territory the Delendanl shall remain in the eustody of the Bureau of Corrections to be treated by the appropriate physieians until the necessary arrangements to transfer the Defendant to a lorensie unit outside of the territory Title 5 V I C § 3637(a) ’Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) provides (b) Where any person has been confined in a forensic unit pursuant to the prmisions of subsection (a) Of this seetion or otherwise in accordance with law and the superintendent or head of sueh forensic unit eertilies ( I) that sueh pelson has regained his eapaeity for judgment discretion and eontrol oi the eonduet 0t his attain and soeial relations (2) that in the opinion of the superintendent or head such person will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himsell or others and (3) in the opinion of the superintendent or head the person is entitled to diseharge from the torensic unit and sueh certificate is filed with the elerk oi the eourt in whieh the person was tried and a eopy thereof served on the United States attorney such eertitieate shall be suflieient to authorize the eourt to order the discharge oi the person so eonfined from further hospitalization but the court in its diserelion may or upon objection oi the United States attorney shall alter due notice hold a hearing at whieh eVidence as to mental eondition of the person so confined may be submitted ineluding the testimony of one or more psychiatrists from said forensic. unit Evidenee may be submitted upon deposition or interrogatories in the case of any torensie unit located more than l00 miles [mm the Virgin Islands The mutt shall weigh the evidenee and it the court finds that such person has regained his eapaeity for judgment discretion and eontrol oi the conduct oi his affairs and social relations and will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others the court shall order sueh person discharged trom further eontinement in said forensic unit It the court does not so find the court shall order sueh person returned to said forensic, unit Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) (emphasis added) People (#1th Virgin Island“ JamalO Joseph 9X 19 CR 01 | Memorandum Opinion 2021 V1 SUPER 23? Page 14 of 17

illness ) (citing Durant 49 VI at 375 n 9) Thus the Court finds Title 5 V IC § 3637(b)

applicable in this instance

B Title 19 V I C § 1201

(II 18 Title 19 V I C § 1201 is titled Discharge of Patients Title 19 V I C § 1201(c) provides

that [a)ny patient held on order of a court having criminal jurisdiction in any action or proceeding

arising out of a criminal offense may be discharged only by order of the district court Titie 19

V I C § 1201(c) In this instance Title 19 V l C § 1201(c) is not applicable because it provides

the Court with the authority to discharge not the authority to commit See People of the Virgin

Islands i Pmrzlla 58 VI 148 163 (Super Ct May 28 2013) ( The Court found that section

[1201] only provides the Court with the authority to release rather than commit an individual )

(quoting People of the Virgin Islands t Richardson 52 VI 211 216 (Super Ct Dec 23 2009))

C Title 19 V I C § 1202

‘11 19 Title 19 V I C § 1202 is titled Procedure regarding mentally ill prisoneis and provides

that [wlhen a prisoner eligible for discharge from the penitentiary or during his term of

incarceiation is alleged by the Commissioner of Public Safety 10 be mentally ill and it shall be

adjudged in accordance with the provisions of this chapter by the district court that such prisoner

is mentally ill he shall be conveyed to the mental hospital by the Commissioner of Public Safety

or under his direction In this instance Title 19 V I C § 1202 is not applicable because Defendant

is not a prisoner that have been adjudged to be mentally ill whi1e serving his sentence More

specifically Defendant is a detainee currentiy held in pre trial detention and found not competent

to stand trial before trial Defendant has not been tried and is not currently serving his term of

incarceiation Peuple q; the Virgin Island“ Jamal 0 Joseph SX [9 CR 0] I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 2:5? Page 15 0t I7

D Title 19 V I C § 723

‘11 20 Title 19 V IC § 723 is titled Involuntary commitment of mentally disturbed alcoholic

and drug dependent persons and allows spouse 01 guardian a relative the certifying physician

behavioral health professional or the Administrator in charge of any approved public treatment

facility to petition a court for the involuntary commitment of a peison t0 the custody of the

Department of Health Title 19 V I C §723(a) Title 19 V I C § 723 requires the petition to allege

that the person is mentally disturbed or an alcoholic or drug dependent person who habitually lacks

self control due to his disturbed condition or to the use of alcoholic beverages or drugs‘ and that he

(1) has threatened attempted 0r inflicted physical harm on himself or another and that unless

committed is likely to inflict physical harm on another or (2) is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs

or in need of heIp and treatment and the court must find that the grounds for involuntary

commitment have been established by clear and convincing proof before committing the person

to the Department of Health Title 19 V I C § 723(a)&(d) A person committed under this section

shall remain in the custody of the Department of Health for treatment for either a time certain

established by the court or for an indefinite period in which latter case the person s commitment

shall be subjected to close periodic judicial scrutiny designed to protect said person from prolonged

and unnecessary commitment Title 19 V I C § 723(e) While Title 19 V IC § 723 does not

specifically address a person in Defendant s situation it may arguably be applicable in this

instance However regardless of whether Title 19 V IC § 723 is applicable the Court notes that

Title 19 V IC § 723 does not provide the Court with the authority to sua sponte ordei the

involuntary commitment of Defendant Title 19 V I C § 723 requires one of the enumerated

individuals to petition the Court before Defendant may be involuntary committed People cht/ie Virgin Islands 1 Jamal 0 Joseph 9X 19 CR Oll Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 1%,? Page 16 of 17

CONCLUSION

(H 21 Based on the foregoing the Court finds Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) applicable in this instance

Title 19 V I C § 120i and Title 19 V I C § I202 not applicable in this instance and Title 19 V I C

§ 723 does not provide the Court with the authority to ma sponre order the involuntary

commitment of Defendant As such the Court will order Defendant to be confined to a forensm

unit until he is competent to stand trial The Court will further order the superintendent or head of

the forensic unit to provide annual report to the Court addressing the following (i) whether

Defendant has regained his capacity for judgment discretion and control of the conduct of his

affairs and social relations (2) whether in the opinion of the superintendent or head such person

will in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others and (3) whether in the opinion of

the superintendent or head the person is entitled to discharge from the forensic unit and such

reports shall be filed with the Court with a copy thereof served on Virgin Islands Department of

Justice Title 5 V I C § 3637(b) If no forensic unit exists in the Territory the Defendant shall

remain in the custody of the Bureau of Corrections to be treated by the appropriate physicians until

the necessary arrangements to transfer the Defendant to a forensic unit outside of the territory

Title 5 V I C § 3637(a) Thereafter pursuant to Rule 12 2(c) of Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal

Procedure upon the motion of the prosecutor or upon the Court s own initiative the Court may

order the Defendant to submit to one or more mental examinations by a psychiatrist or other

expert designated for this purpose in the order of the court to determine if Defendant has regained

his competency to stand trial V I R Crim P 12 2(c) Defendant may only be discharged by order

of the Court Title 19 V IC § 1201(c) ( Any patient held on order of a court having criminal

jurisdiction in any action or proceeding arising out of a criminal offense may be discharged only People offhe Virgin Islandm Jamal 0 Joseph 9X l9 CR 01 I Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER (2’22? Fag; l7 0! 17

by order of the di§tliCt court ) An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be

entered contemporaneously herewith

DONE this (9% day of February 2021

/ / /

HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Presiding Judge of the Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

Case No SX 19 CV 011 Charges 14 V I C § 922(a)(1) Murder First Degree 14 V I C § 922(a)(2) Murder First Degree PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 14 V I C § 2253(a) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm During the PLAINTIFF, Commission of a Crime of Violence v 14 V I C § 295(1) and 16 V I C §91(b)(l&2) Assault First Degree/Domestic Violence JAMAL JOSEPH 14 V I C §2256(a) Possession or Sale of Ammunition DEFENDANT 14 V I C § 297(2) and 16 V I C § 91(b)(1&2) Assault Third Degree/Domestic Violence 23 V I C § 479(d) Discharging or Aiming Firearms

CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER 2?)? Appearances Eric Chancellor, Esq Department of Justice Christlansted, U S Virgin Islands For Plamtlfi’

Yolan Brow Ross, Esq Office of the Territorial Public Defender ngshill U S Virgin Islands For Defendant

ORDER

WILLOCKS, Presiding Judge

In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously herewith, it IS

hereby

ORDERED that Defendant shall be confined to a forensic unit until he is competent to

stand trial If no forensic unit exists in the Territory, Defendant shall remain in the custody of the People ofthe Virgin Islands v Jamal 0 Joseph SX 19 CR 011 Order 2021 VI SUPER 2%? Page 2 of 2

Bureau of Corrections to be treated by the appropriate physicians until the necessary arrangements

to transfer the defendant to a forensic unit outside of the Territory, but for no more than sixty

(60) days from the date of entry of this Order It is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall only be discharged by order of the Court It is further

ORDERED that the superintendent or head of the forensic unit shall provide annual report

to the Court addressing the following (1) whether Defendant has regalned his capacity for

judgment, discretion and control of the conduct of his affairs and social relations, (2) whether, in

the opinion of the superintendent or head, such person wiil in the reasonable future be dangerous

to himself or others and (3) whether in the opinion of the superintendent or head, the person is

entitled to discharge from the forensic unit Such reports shail be filed with the Court between the

period of January 13‘ through January 3 15‘ of each year, commencing in 2022, with a copy thereof

served contemporaneously on Virgin Islands Department of Justice It is further

ORDERED that a status conference is scheduled to take place in person on March 26,

2021 at 9 00 a m in Courtroom 206 It is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to submit Dr Evadne Sang’s evaluation report under

seal is DENIED

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to file motion for competency hearing under seal is

DENIED

DONE and so ORDERED this (9‘ ”( 3‘“ day of February 2021 //

%WWM HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Presiding Judge of the Superior Court