Elizabeth Smart Case Summary
The Elizabeth Smart Case featured Brian David Mitchell, who entered a claim of "incompetence to stand trial." The main charge was kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines with intent to engage in sexual activity. The following is a summary of both the case and trial, plus its impact on the criminal justice system and the accused's use or mis-use of the claim of "incompetence to stand trial".
On June 5, 2002, in Salt Lake City, Utah, Brian David Mitchell abducted Elizabeth Smart, who was fourteen years of age and considered a minor, from her bedroom. A witness to the event is Mary Katherine Smart, her 9-year-old sister whom with she shared the bedroom at the time pretending to be sleep. After he took her into a canyon located …show more content…
behind her family's home, he then performed an impromptu wedding ceremony, marrying them to each other. Next, he proceeded to rape her, which he did multiple times on the daily basis for the nine months that followed. On March 12, 2003, in Sandy, Utah, him and Wanda Ileen Barzee were found accompanying Elizabeth.
Mitchell underwent a competency evaluation by Dr.
Stephen Golding, a psychologist hired by the defense, who concluded that Mitchell was delusional and not competent to stand trial. Golding was then superseded by the court, finding Mitchell to be the opposite. As the trial went on, Dr. Jennifer Skeem, who initially concluded that Mitchell was competent reevaluated him, then his attorney, Heidi Buchi, claimed he was no longer competent to stand trial. Mitchell's behavior became devious in court while remaining the same in jail. Judy Atherton, judge of the case, agreed that Mitchell was showing signs insanity. After being re-admitted to Utah State hospital from August 11, 2005 to the year 2008, staff claimed him to not have shown any signs of mental illness.
During that period, in February 2006, a bill went before the Utah legislature to allow prosecutors to apply for forcible medication on defendants to restore their competence to face trial. Permission to forcibly medicate Wanda Barzee was also sought, relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sell v. United States (2003), which permits compulsory medication when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest is served by restoring a person's competence and that medication would not harm the person or prevent him
from
On December 12, 2008, the litigative team led by assistant United States attorneys Felice Viti, David F. Backman, and Diana Hagen had their request of forcible medication was overruled. This was done on the grounds that the court believed doing so is "unnecessary and needlessly harsh," violating Mitchell's right to a speedy trial. On October 1, 2009 and November 30 through December 11, 2009 the court held hearings on his competency.
Dr. Gardner deemed Mitchell sane and that any actions that he displayed in court were to mislead it. Dr. Welner, while deeming Mitchell fit to stand trial, diagnosed him with pedophilia, nonexclusive type, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, malingering, and alcohol abuse in a controlled environment. Welner too, believed that Mitchell acted to persuade the court into believing that he is delusional. In opposition, Dr. DeMier, believed that during the time of the crime, Mitchell was insane. On November 8, 2010, the trial began. On December 11, 2010, the jury found Mitchell guilty of kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines with intent to engage in sexual activity. He is now serving a life sentence.
The following are the impact of her case on the criminal justice system and the accused's use or mis-use of the claim of "incompetence to stand trial". The system paid more close attention to the due process, rather than crime control model, in this case. While angering a large amount of the public with its long time length, it revealed the existence of certain circumstances where assembly line justice might be more harmful than helpful to the system's predominant goal. The accused's use or mis-use of the claim of "incompetence to stand trial" is now easier to distinguish between due to her case.
On June 5, 2002, in Salt Lake City, Utah, Brian David Mitchell abducted Elizabeth Smart, who was fourteen years of age and considered a minor, from her bedroom. A witness to the event is Mary Katherine Smart, her 9-year-old sister whom with she shared the bedroom at the time pretending to be sleep. After he took her into a canyon located …show more content…
behind her family's home, he then performed an impromptu wedding ceremony, marrying them to each other. Next, he proceeded to rape her, which he did multiple times on the daily basis for the nine months that followed. On March 12, 2003, in Sandy, Utah, him and Wanda Ileen Barzee were found accompanying Elizabeth.
Mitchell underwent a competency evaluation by Dr.
Stephen Golding, a psychologist hired by the defense, who concluded that Mitchell was delusional and not competent to stand trial. Golding was then superseded by the court, finding Mitchell to be the opposite. As the trial went on, Dr. Jennifer Skeem, who initially concluded that Mitchell was competent reevaluated him, then his attorney, Heidi Buchi, claimed he was no longer competent to stand trial. Mitchell's behavior became devious in court while remaining the same in jail. Judy Atherton, judge of the case, agreed that Mitchell was showing signs insanity. After being re-admitted to Utah State hospital from August 11, 2005 to the year 2008, staff claimed him to not have shown any signs of mental illness.
During that period, in February 2006, a bill went before the Utah legislature to allow prosecutors to apply for forcible medication on defendants to restore their competence to face trial. Permission to forcibly medicate Wanda Barzee was also sought, relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sell v. United States (2003), which permits compulsory medication when the state can demonstrate a compelling interest is served by restoring a person's competence and that medication would not harm the person or prevent him
from
On December 12, 2008, the litigative team led by assistant United States attorneys Felice Viti, David F. Backman, and Diana Hagen had their request of forcible medication was overruled. This was done on the grounds that the court believed doing so is "unnecessary and needlessly harsh," violating Mitchell's right to a speedy trial. On October 1, 2009 and November 30 through December 11, 2009 the court held hearings on his competency.
Dr. Gardner deemed Mitchell sane and that any actions that he displayed in court were to mislead it. Dr. Welner, while deeming Mitchell fit to stand trial, diagnosed him with pedophilia, nonexclusive type, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, malingering, and alcohol abuse in a controlled environment. Welner too, believed that Mitchell acted to persuade the court into believing that he is delusional. In opposition, Dr. DeMier, believed that during the time of the crime, Mitchell was insane. On November 8, 2010, the trial began. On December 11, 2010, the jury found Mitchell guilty of kidnapping and transporting a minor across state lines with intent to engage in sexual activity. He is now serving a life sentence.
The following are the impact of her case on the criminal justice system and the accused's use or mis-use of the claim of "incompetence to stand trial". The system paid more close attention to the due process, rather than crime control model, in this case. While angering a large amount of the public with its long time length, it revealed the existence of certain circumstances where assembly line justice might be more harmful than helpful to the system's predominant goal. The accused's use or mis-use of the claim of "incompetence to stand trial" is now easier to distinguish between due to her case.