Legal Spring Logo

"Reviewing every type of legal service"
Reviewing Legal Services Online
 LEGAL SPRING
     


Google
 
'Schizophrenic' On CIA Hit List?



abemarf@aol.com (Martin F. Abernathy)
2/9/2004 3:42:50 PM


He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service hit lists..."
~~~~~
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DANIEL GORDON PLATT, Appellant.
No. 68750-1
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
143 Wn.2d 242; 19 P.3d 412; 2001 Wash. LEXIS 253
October 17, 2000, Oral Argument
March 15, 2001, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Order Changing Opinion June 15, 2001.
Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 6287.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County;
94-1-00044-1. Honorable Kathryn E. Trumbull, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed the order denying Platt's petition for
conditional release.
HEADNOTES: [1] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From
Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Hearing -- Purpose. The purpose
of the hearing required by RCW 10.77.150(2) on a petition for
conditional release of a person committed to a state mental hospital
under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane is to determine whether
or not the person may be released conditionally without substantial
danger to other persons and whether there is a substantial likelihood
that the person will commit criminal acts that would jeopardize public
safety or security.
[2] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From
Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Presumption of Continued
Insanity. When a person confined to a state mental hospital under
chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane petitions for conditional
release and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make
a favorable recommendation on the petition, it is presumed that the
person's insanity is continuing.
[3] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From
Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Burden of Proof. When a person
confined to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as
criminally insane petitions for conditional release from confinement
and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make a
favorable recommendation on the petition, the person has the burden of
proving that he or she is fit for conditional release to a community
setting. The burden is met by showing that the person would not
present a substantial risk to others and is not substantially likely
to commit further criminal acts if released into the community.
[4] Appeal -- Findings of Fact -- Review -- Substantial Evidence -- In
General. A trial court's findings of fact will be upheld on review if
they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
COUNSEL: For Petitioner(s): Jason B. Saunders, Washington Appellate
Project, Seattle, WA.
For Respondent(s): Seth A. Fine, Snohomish Co. Prosecutor's Office,
Everett, WA.
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Criminal D:
Suzanne L. Elliott, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA.
JUDGES: Authored by Philip A. Talmadge. Concurring: Richard P. Guy,
Charles Z. Smith, Barbara A. Madsen, Faith E Ireland. Dissenting:
Richard B. Sanders, Gerry L. Alexander, Charles W. Johnson. Written
Dissent by Sanders, J.
OPINIONBY: Philip A. Talmadge
OPINION: [**412] [*243] En Banc
TALMADGE, J. n1 - We must decide in this case who bears the burden of
proof at a hearing under RCW 10.77.150 on the conditional release of
an individual found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity and
committed to a state hospital for treatment. Based on the language of
RCW 10.77.150 and RCW 10.77.200, we hold the individual committed to
the state hospital bears the burden of proving he [***2] or she is a
fit subject for conditional release to a community setting. We affirm
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Justice Talmadge is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme
Court pursuant to Const. art. IV, 2(a) (amend. 38).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**413] [*244] ISSUE
Under RCW 10.77.150, who bears the burden of proof when an individual
found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state
hospital seeks conditional release?
FACTS
During the night of December 13, 1993, Daniel Platt attempted to elude
a pursuing police car. Following a high-speed chase at speeds of up to
80 miles per hour on Everett streets, during the course of which he
ran several red lights and stop signs, Platt was caught by the police.
He was combative and resisted arrest; he asked the police to call the
White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He claimed he was bleeding.
He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service hit lists and he had fled from the officers because he
believed they [***3] were agents sent to kill him.
The State charged Platt with attempting to elude a pursuing police
vehicle, a felony under RCW 46.61.024. Following a Western State
Hospital evaluation, the parties stipulated to a finding of not guilty
by reason of insanity. The trial court found Platt not guilty by
reason of insanity in August 1994 and placed him on conditional
release, requiring him to undergo mental health treatment, take
prescribed medications, and report to the Department of Corrections.
Platt promptly violated the terms of the conditional release by
failing to continue treatment, sending threatening letters, and making
threatening phone calls. He returned to Western State Hospital where
he spent much of 1995.
Platt was again conditionally released in December 1995 and resumed
working as a pharmacist, his chosen profession. n2 In January 1996,
the State petitioned the trial court [*245] to issue a bench warrant
for Platt's arrest, alleging he had failed to take his medications and
he was delusional. Platt made threats involving firearms to his
family, neighbors, and public officials and implied he would take his
own life. He specifically referenced possession [***4] of an "Uzi" or
AK-47. The threats prompted people to secure no-contact orders against
Platt. Platt asserted he was hiding in a government witness relocation
program and his deceased wife was still alive. The trial court
modified Platt's conditions of release in January 1996, but did not
issue a bench warrant for his detention.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 Throughout much of the period of his intermittent conditional
releases, Platt worked as a pharmacist generating complaints about
poor professional performance or odd behavior. Platt apparently is no
longer licensed as a pharmacist by the State of Washington.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In December 1996, Platt was working as a pharmacist when his employer
received complaints he was making mistakes in filling and labeling
prescriptions. In December 1996, Platt met with an investigator from
the Board of Pharmacy. During the interview he to
 
 
"scoopdamedia"
2/17/2004 10:09:00 PM


HEY- CIA,FBI, NSA- "learn" a MORE with their "experiments " by using an
infinite variety of subjects(victims) including victimizing real
schizophrenics.


"Martin F. Abernathy" <abemarf@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f0f9ae7d.0402091542.2696300b@posting.google.com...

"He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service hit lists..."
~~~~~
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DANIEL GORDON PLATT, Appellant.
No. 68750-1
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
143 Wn.2d 242; 19 P.3d 412; 2001 Wash. LEXIS 253
October 17, 2000, Oral Argument
March 15, 2001, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Order Changing Opinion June 15, 2001.
Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 6287.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County;
94-1-00044-1. Honorable Kathryn E. Trumbull, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed the order denying Platt's petition for
conditional release.
HEADNOTES: [1] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From
Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Hearing -- Purpose. The purpose
of the hearing required by RCW 10.77.150(2) on a petition for
conditional release of a person committed to a state mental hospital
under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane is to determine whether
or not the person may be released conditionally without substantial
danger to other persons and whether there is a substantial likelihood
that the person will commit criminal acts that would jeopardize public
safety or security.
[2] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From
Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Presumption of Continued
Insanity. When a person confined to a state mental hospital under
chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane petitions for conditional
release and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make
a favorable recommendation on the petition, it is presumed that the
person's insanity is continuing.
[3] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From
Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Burden of Proof. When a person
confined to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as
criminally insane petitions for conditional release from confinement
and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make a
favorable recommendation on the petition, the person has the burden of
proving that he or she is fit for conditional release to a community
setting. The burden is met by showing that the person would not
present a substantial risk to others and is not substantially likely
to commit further criminal acts if released into the community.
[4] Appeal -- Findings of Fact -- Review -- Substantial Evidence -- In
General. A trial court's findings of fact will be upheld on review if
they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
COUNSEL: For Petitioner(s): Jason B. Saunders, Washington Appellate
Project, Seattle, WA.
For Respondent(s): Seth A. Fine, Snohomish Co. Prosecutor's Office,
Everett, WA.
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Criminal D:
Suzanne L. Elliott, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA.
JUDGES: Authored by Philip A. Talmadge. Concurring: Richard P. Guy,
Charles Z. Smith, Barbara A. Madsen, Faith E Ireland. Dissenting:
Richard B. Sanders, Gerry L. Alexander, Charles W. Johnson. Written
Dissent by Sanders, J.
OPINIONBY: Philip A. Talmadge
OPINION: [**412] [*243] En Banc
TALMADGE, J. n1 - We must decide in this case who bears the burden of
proof at a hearing under RCW 10.77.150 on the conditional release of
an individual found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity and
committed to a state hospital for treatment. Based on the language of
RCW 10.77.150 and RCW 10.77.200, we hold the individual committed to
the state hospital bears the burden of proving he [***2] or she is a
fit subject for conditional release to a community setting. We affirm
the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Justice Talmadge is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme
Court pursuant to Const. art. IV, 2(a) (amend. 38).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**413] [*244] ISSUE
Under RCW 10.77.150, who bears the burden of proof when an individual
found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state
hospital seeks conditional release?
FACTS
During the night of December 13, 1993, Daniel Platt attempted to elude
a pursuing police car. Following a high-speed chase at speeds of up to
80 miles per hour on Everett streets, during the course of which he
ran several red lights and stop signs, Platt was caught by the police.
He was combative and resisted arrest; he asked the police to call the
White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He claimed he was bleeding.
He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret
Service hit lists and he had fled from the officers because he
believed they [***3] were agents sent to kill him.
The State charged Platt with attempting to elude a pursuing police
vehicle, a felony under RCW 46.61.024. Following a Western State
Hospital evaluation, the parties stipulated to a finding of not guilty
by reason of insanity. The trial court found Platt not guilty by
reason of insanity in August 1994 and placed him on conditional
release, requiring him to undergo mental health treatment, take
prescribed medications, and report to the Department of Corrections.
Platt promptly violated the terms of the conditional release by
failing to continue treatment, sending threatening letters, and making
threatening phone calls. He returned to Western State Hospital where
he spent much of 1995.
Platt was again conditionally released in December 1995 and resumed
working as a pharmacist, his chosen profession. n2 In January 1996,
the State petitioned the trial court [*245] to issue a bench warrant
for Platt's arrest, alleging he had failed to take his medications and
he was delusional. Platt made threats involving firearms to his
family, neighbors, and public officials and implied he would take his
own life. He specifically referenced possession [***4] of an "Uzi" or
AK-47. The threats prompted people to secure no-contact orders against
Platt. Platt asserted he was hiding in a government witness relocation
program and his deceased wife was still alive. The trial court
modified Platt's conditions of release in January 1996, but did not
issue a bench warrant for his detention.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 Throughout much of the period of his intermittent conditional
releases, Pla
 
 
Report this post for offensive content


site map |  disclaimer |  privacy
All Rights Reserved, Legal Spring, Inc. 2004