Public Defender Danielle Marie Daroca-Bell Initiated Competency Proceedings Without Court Order (People v. Michael Taylor) Case GA1111-32-01
Los Angeles, CA – In a case raising serious questions about legal ethics and due process, court-appointed attorney Ms. Daroca-Bell initiated a competency assessment for defendant Michael Taylor before the court had officially declared doubt regarding his competency, a procedural misstep with significant consequences. This premature assessment has led to adverse legal repercussions for Taylor, including involuntary commitment and forced medication, while also implicating multiple legal professionals in systemic failures that have compromised his ability to defend himself.
According to court records and attorney correspondence, Ms. Bell arranged for a psychiatric evaluation of Taylor prior to February 14, 2024, the date on which the court formally documented the declaration of doubt regarding Taylor’s competency. However, the evaluation itself was conducted on January 5, 2024, and January 18, 2024, well before any court order was issued. Under California Penal Code Section 1368, a judge must first declare doubt before an assessment can be authorized. This raises the indisputable issue that Ms. Bell acted outside her legal authority, improperly facilitating an evaluation that should have never occurred at that time.
Further compounding the legal discrepancies, the competency evaluation cites a minute order that does not exist. This raises concerns about whether official records were improperly used to justify proceedings that ultimately led to Taylor’s involuntary commitment and forced medication. The evaluation’s filing date of February 28, 2024, appears to serve as a post-facto justification for an assessment that was initiated prematurely, effectively creating a situation where the assessment’s validity is legally questionable.
Ms. Bell’s actions raise serious concerns regarding her fiduciary duty as a defense attorney. The Rules of Professional Conduct for California Attorneys mandate that attorneys protect the rights of their clients and act within the boundaries of the law. By initiating an assessment without judicial authorization, she effectively undermined Taylor’s constitutional rights, particularly his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
Additionally, Taylor was never informed that the evaluation would be used to determine competency rather than his eligibility for diversion under PC 1001.36. Ms. Bell previously told Taylor in emails dated September 13, 2023, and October 5, 2023, that Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo would be evaluating him for diversion, not competency. This misrepresentation raises ethical concerns about whether privileged information was extracted under false pretenses and later used against him in court.
While Ms. Bell’s actions initiated the issue, multiple other legal professionals failed to intervene at critical points.
- Judge Suzette Louise Clover (Pasadena Court): Allowed the unauthorized evaluation to be entered into court proceedings without scrutiny, despite the clear lack of judicial authorization prior to the assessment.
- Judge Ronald Owen Kaye (Hollywood Mental Health Court): Presided over subsequent hearings where Taylor’s competency was adjudicated, failing to address the legal deficiencies surrounding the assessment.
- Deputy District Attorney Sharon L. Ransom: While still serving as a prosecutor, agreed to Taylor’s commitment based on evaluations that directly referenced the initial flawed assessment.
- Public Defenders Michael Salmaggi & Hannah Mandel: After Ms. Bell’s withdrawal, both Salmaggi and Mandel were assigned to Taylor’s case but declared conflicts of interest without explanation. Their failure to investigate or challenge the competency issue left Taylor without proper legal advocacy.
- Bar Panel Attorney Vernon Patterson: Currently representing Taylor, Patterson has dismissed concerns about the competency assessment, choosing instead to focus solely on trial proceedings despite the assessment’s direct impact on the case’s fairness.
The lack of intervention from multiple parties suggests a broader issue within the legal system—one in which procedural violations are ignored rather than corrected. The failure to challenge the competency assessment means Taylor’s case has proceeded under compromised legal conditions, effectively placing him at a disadvantage in defending against the criminal charges.
Furthermore, Judge Clover, Judge Kaye, and former Deputy District Attorney Ransom—now a sitting judge—all allowed legally questionable evidence to be used. The fact that Ransom later ascended to the bench raises additional ethical concerns regarding her prosecutorial conduct in this case.
As a result of these failures:
- Taylor was involuntarily committed and forcibly medicated based on an evaluation that lacked judicial authorization.
- His ability to defend himself has been severely impacted, as the competency proceedings placed significant delays on his case and influenced legal decisions affecting him.
- Key legal professionals failed to address the violations, leaving Taylor with limited options for recourse within the system.
The case of People v. Michael Taylor is a stark example of systemic legal malpractice and raises fundamental questions about accountability within the California court system. The unauthorized competency assessment initiated by Ms. Bell set off a chain reaction of due process violations, impacting every stage of Taylor’s case.
If left unchallenged, this case could set a dangerous precedent—one in which procedural violations in competency proceedings go uncorrected and defendants suffer irreversible legal consequences. Taylor’s case highlights the urgent need for oversight, accountability, and judicial intervention to ensure that constitutional rights are not arbitrarily ignored in the criminal justice process.
Legal experts and civil rights advocates may find this case concerning, particularly as it raises serious due process questions. As Taylor awaits further proceedings, one key question remains: Will the court system rectify these violations, or will this case become yet another example of overlooked judicial misconduct?
Comments
Post a Comment