Closing Arguments and a Hung Jury in Napa Extension Case

By Catherine McKnight

On Wednesday morning the court heard closing arguments in People v. Humphrey. The state is seeking a re-extension on Casey Humphrey’s commitment at Napa State Hospital. The key question surrounding this case: “Is he a harm to others?” It is not about guilt or innocence, which Judge Paul Richardson made clear to the jury.

In his opening, DDA Gorman said that the “bottom line” is that Casey Humphrey “is apparently schizophrenic with little or no insight into his mental illness.” Because of this, he said, this makes him a substantial threat to others.

Mr. Gorman continued by saying that Casey cannot take his medication normally – it is usually crushed into his food because of his past history of diverting medication. He noted that Casey is currently only at the low range of the therapeutic range with Clozapine and that in about six months he should be ready for release.

Mr. Gorman repeated the instructions to the jury and the elements necessary to extend his commitment. He argued that the only thing controlling Casey’s outbursts is the Clozapine and that he is not taking it the way it was meant to be taken – orally in pill form. He also pointed out that this has been in a strictly supervised setting. The difference between now and the future is the future would be in an unsupervised setting.

The People brought up what Dr. Glasser’s report was a few months ago, when it was reported that Casey was a substantial threat. He then used an analogy he talked with his brother about, who is a dentist. He said his brother thought about how bizarre it is that Casey’s current treating psychiatrist has an opinion that Casey should stay in Napa for six more months, yet it is being left up to twelve citizens to decide. If his brother had a patient who he knew needed serious dental work done, he continued, it would be up to him decide because he is the dentist.

With that said, Mr. Gorman said that at some point, it has to be decided in a case like this that the expert, Dr. Glasser, knows best. He said it is no question that Casey has a loving family or place to get upon release, but now is simply not the time.

DDA Gorman ended his closing by saying that Dr. Glasser testified that Casey had no understanding of his mental illness and how his substance abuse has an effect on it. He also said that Casey ended up in Napa because of his own actions and, because of his lack of insight, he poses a substantial threat/danger to others. What Casey’s mom and brother want, he continued, should not guide the decision.

In Deputy Public Defender Bret Bandley’s closing argument, he started by telling the jury that they are not here to decide what occurred several years ago. He asked them to decide on Casey “as he sits here today, this moment in time.” He continued to say that Dr. Glasser’s opinion dates back to March and that, from his testimony, his expert opinion has changed since then.

Mr. Bandley went on to discuss how this is a significant concern because his client could be deprived of his liberty. He told the jury how all elements must be met beyond a reasonable doubt. He explained how important it is to understand key words, especially “substantial.” This is not “maybe” or “possible” – it has to be absolutely substantial, as Casey sits here today.

Dr. Glasser also testified that there have been no acts of physical violence by Casey, and he has not been on Clozapine the entire time. The entire time Casey has been admitted, there has been no physical violence. He has been compliant, he continued.

Mr. Bandley said that the only reason his pills are being crushed and added to food or water is because they are afraid there will be misuse because of his past history. It is not that he is not willing to take Clozapine; it is something Casey “wanted to do.” He also said that there is a plan for Casey upon release.

Mr. Bandley told the jury that the major period of drug use associated with his substance abuse problem all occurred before his time in Napa, in his late teen years – over ten years ago.

Dr. Glasser testified that he believes Casey is voluntarily taking his medication. His family, he continued, understands what needs to be done if Casey is to be released in November. It will be in a rural setting, by a lake, and that “family is family.” He will be able to learn social skills by his family and that being in a mental hospital for over ten years has undoubtedly affected his difficulty to recognize normal social cues.

“So, does he pose a substantial threat as he sits here today? No. There has been no incidence of physical behavior.”

He explained to the jury what preponderance of evidence means, and that it is not the highest standard in the criminal judicial system. Mr. Bandley ended by saying that Casey is now 28, the incident happened 11 years ago, and he has been in a hospital all of his adult life. His father was physically and emotionally abusive, and Casey wants to move on with his life and “wants to have a chance.”

In DDA Gorman’s rebuttal, he said that, growing up, “Casey’s life sucked,” which more often than not happens to children who are put into an abusive environment. He continued to say that it is okay to have compassion, but this case and this petition is not about what Casey wants. “He gave that right up 11 years ago.”

He ended by telling the jury that he will eventually be released and this is not a case without hope. Casey’s time will come, just not right now.

UPDATE: On Thursday morning, the jury could not come to a unanimous decision.  With a hung jury in this special proceeding situation, the DA can retry, but DDA Gorman chose not to. Casey Humphrey will be released to his family as scheduled, in November of this year.