By Roxanna Jarvis
SACRAMENTO – A psychologist was removed from a list of doctors approved to evaluate defendants and testify in Sacramento County Superior Court after it was found that he allowed his supervisee to help him with the evaluation of a defendant.
The uncertainty of who wrote the evaluation, and the fact that the supervisee was not approved to do such evaluations, led Judge Timothy Frawley late last week to decide to appoint a third doctor.
The psychologist removed from the list, Dr. Donald Siggins, was originally appointed as one of two doctors to evaluate Aaron Walker, currently in custody at Sacramento County Main Jail and charged with committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child aged 14 years or under.
Siggins’ evaluation of Walker concluded that he was not sane, while the other psychologist, Dr. Janice Nakagawa, found Walker to be “malingering” or falsifying his competency.
Walker’s case was set for trial and the evaluations of both medical experts were planned to be used then. But, things took a turn when Siggins’ supervisee allegedly approached the panel in charge of approving doctors and asked for an appointment and payment for her work in Walker’s evaluation.
“We were set for trial but some new developments, with respect to Dr. Siggins and the supervisee, with respect to whether or not the supervisee was qualified to render an opinion and/or do the 
research, which was the basis of the evaluation, arose,” explained Deputy District Attorney Quirina Orozco.
After some discussion, it was found that the supervisee allegedly visited Walker seven to eight times, while Siggins (appointed to do the evaluation) had attended only once.
Because of this discovery, the panel ultimately decided to remove Dr. Siggins from the list of approved doctors. “He will not be appointed to any new case, at least for the time being,” DDA Orozco told the court.
Orozco said she is unsure if the report would be used in court because there is “conflicting information from each of the doctors” about who wrote the basis of the evaluation.
“We did present that little bit of information at our last date [in court] and Judge Sweet was prepared to appoint the third doctor,” the prosecutor said, adding the assistant public defender assigned to the case at the time, Juan Corona, wanted to give his replacement, private defense counsel Thomas Clinkenbeard, an opportunity to decide on the third doctor.
When it was his turn to speak to the Court, Clinkenbeard objected to the appointment of a third doctor. He argued first by saying that the appointment of a third doctor is not necessary, referring to Penal Code § 1027 which requires the Court to appoint two doctors, but is “only permissive” regarding the appointment of three.
Clinkenbeard continued by arguing that Dr. Siggins and the supervisee are still qualified as experts, even if the supervisee isn’t on the approved list by the panel.
“As to the merit of Mrs. Orozco’s comments, it appears to the defense that this is, in no undue disrespect intended, but this is a pre-textual measure in order to begin to undermine doctors [whose] opinions are antithetical to the People’s case.”
To Clinkenbeard, the “bureaucratic or administrative payment issues with the panel” does not affect the doctors’ qualifications. He admitted that there could be some credibility issues for the jury to take up at trial but stated that it’s no reason to think that both doctors couldn’t testify.
“They are both experts, they both have doctorate degrees in psychology, they both have training in forensics and they would both easily qualify as experts,” added Clinkenbeard.
Prosecutor Orozco noted, “I don’t want to have a situation where there are two doctors and one of them is not approved by the panel, and there may be a current investigation as to both of them because of potential untruths provided to the committee.”
She clarified the use of “untruths” to the court as to who truly wrote the evaluation. “It was written by Stiggins but all of the research was done by the supervisee who was asking for payment although she was not on the approved list of experts,” she added.
“Again, that is a credibility issue?” asked Judge Frawley.
“Yes,” Orozco answered. “I just don’t trust the basis of this evaluation as it comes from what appears to be research and evaluation conducted by someone who is not approved.”
Ultimately, Judge Frawley decided to appoint a third judge in the case.
Due to the limited availability of doctors to write evaluations during the pandemic, Orozco and Clinkenbeard agreed upon three doctors who could fill that role—Dr. Lauren Marasa, Dr. Denise Kellaher, and Dr. John Mcilnay.
“The Court will appoint Dr. Marasa at this point if Dr. Marasa is able to conduct the evaluation from there,” said the judge.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
