Wino Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 His lawyer said he is mentally ill. The guy would have to be "off his rocker" if he thought this would help his case. Although it seems to me the jury went overboard when the sentence came back at 31 years for a robery case. SAN DIEGO – A man who sneaked a bag of his feces into a San Diego courtroom during his home-invasion robbery trial, smeared it on his lawyer and threw it at jurors has been sentenced to 31 years in prison. Superior Court Judge Frank Brown on Monday sentenced Weusi McGowan for robbery, burglary and two assault charges stemming from the feces-flinging incident during his January trial. McGowan, who attorneys say suffers from mental illness, had asked for a mistrial because he believed jurors had seen him in restraints when he entered the courtroom. Several days after his request was denied, McGowan pulled out a bag of excrement he had hidden in his clothing, rubbed it on his lawyer and tossed it at the jury, hitting one juror's computer case. ___ Information from: The San Diego Union-Tribune, http://www.signonsandiego.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleothegreat Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Hahaha! Ewww. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Thank god it didn't hit the fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I think it did hit the fan for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WannaGo Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I think I might have ended up on trial next if he'd rubbed or thrown shit on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleothegreat Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Ew. Imagine scooping your poop up and putting it in a plastic bag. Or maybe he directly took a dump inside the bag! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Gross. I still think the jury went overboard on sentencing 31 years in prison. Many are not sentenced that long on a murder charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WannaGo Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Gross. I still think the jury went overboard on sentencing 31 years in prison. Many are not sentenced that long on a murder charge.Depends on his criminal history. Many states have sentencing enhancements for prior convictions, but the story doesn't give any details about that. Doesn't really seem to fit the crime charged, though. According to the original story, his weapon was a rock in a sock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 If this guy is crazy enough to throw feces around a court room, I bet he has done some crazy things in the recent past. You are probably right in that the court takes into consideration his past convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WannaGo Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 He may not have been crazy at all...cons are smart...or at least cunning...and he may have just taken a calculated risk that he thought would win him an acquittal or at least gotten him sent to a state hospital, where the time would go easier than a state prison. I could swear I've also seen some movie or television show, or maybe read a novel, in which the defendant did something very much like this to convince the judge that he was incompetent. Damned if I can remember the name, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 I should think courts are more sophisticated these days and not fall for the "look, I am crazy" routine. Might get him a psych evaluation but then the defendant would have to fool a health care professional. In most cases, I should think fooling a psychiatrist would be a difficult thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Many years ago I was at a commitment hearing, probably the shortest hearing ever. The judge asked the guy, "What do uyou think we should do with you?' The guy answered, "I don't give a fuck what you do with me, as long as you feed me." Judge said, "Committed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Many years ago I was at a commitment hearing, probably the shortest hearing ever. The judge asked the guy, "What do uyou think we should do with you?' The guy answered, "I don't give a fuck what you do with me, as long as you feed me." Judge said, "Committed." Interesting, I wonder where that hearing was held? Certainly not in Michigan or any of the 40+ other states which essentially share the model mental health code. In Michigan, there are two proofs the prosecutor (who represents the person or entity trying to commit somebody involuntarily) must show and prove both by a preponderance of the evidence. First, they must show by competent psychological/psychiatric evidence that the person is mentally ill. Second, they must show one of three other things: (1) that the person by prior acts or threats is a danger to himself or other; (2) that the person by prior acts has demonstrated an inability to care for his basic needs; or (3) that the person, due to his mental illness, has demonstrated by prior acts or threats that he has a total inability to understand his need for treatment. And, of course, the person they are trying to commit has a right to testify and has the absolute right to have an attorney present to advocate what that person wants (and a myriad of other rights including the right to compel witnesses to testify, the right to have an independent psychologist/psychiatrist appointed to examine him and possibly testify on his behalf, etc. And that person cannot be medicated prior to the hearing so he has a chance to be coherent defending his rights. In other words, the person who is the subject of a petition to commit involuntarily is afforded exceptional due process and, ultimately, it's the judge's job to determine if the person meets the criteria of the mental health code and what treatment is reasonably necessary to suit the person's best interests. Your example would not have resulted in commitment in any state I'm aware of. As I noted, you need to prove certain acts or threats beyond just a finding of mental illness (you can think your Jesus Christ but that's not enough to commit you). In the old Soviet Union, they only used the one criteria - whether your mentally ill - and, of course, they essentially found you were mentally ill if you didn't think "right." That, essentially, is how Sakarov and thousands of his countrymen were committed to the gulags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Thankfully, most states have tougher laws on committing a person to a mental health facility than in years past. Does a judge necessarily have to follow those rules? I guess they have to follow the letter of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Does a judge necessarily have to follow those rules? I guess they have to follow the letter of the law. A good judge does whereas a bad judge ignores or adds his/her own requirements. What I love and respect is a judge who will expressly rail against a given rule or law, explain why it's unwise or inadequate, and then follows it anyway as that's his/her job. Thankfully, there are more good judges than bad (imho). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 It occurred in Illinois. The judge acted appropriately in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 It occurred in Illinois. The judge acted appropriately in this case. Answer one question and that is all a guy has to do in order to determine if he is insane? Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Answer one question and that is all a guy has to do in order to determine if he is insane? Yeah, right. As Illinois essentially has the same law (mental health code) as Michigan, I can assure you that the commitment hearing consisted far more than the proposed patient making the one comment to the Court; if not, a gross violation of the law and violation of the patient's due process rights occurred. Typically, the patient is not afforded the opportunity to testify until after the petitioner (often a family member or a cop) has testified as to the facts they witnessed and a mental health professional who examined the patient has testified (and the patient's appointed attorney has had the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses). Perhaps the only part of the hearing that lvdkeyes saw was when the patient was asked what he wanted to say. I, too, have heard a proposed patient (my client) say the wierdest damned things but that was only a minor part of the proceedings. Some of the hearings will never leave me. I recall one young lady of about 21 in a wheelchair who simply told the judge she wanted to be a beauty queen. The sad part (I actually hate to repeat this) was she was rather hideous looking and had removed both of her eyeballs with a fork. Incredibly sad, for her and her family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 No, it is what a judge can use to have a guy committed. During the hospitalization, the guy would be evaluated to determine sanity, which is a word not used by professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Perhaps this was before the enactment of the mental health code laws? Years ago, officials had much more freedom to do as they wanted with the mentally ill. Look at Ken Kesey’s book, “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 I'm still a bit confused. Is it possible, lvdkeyes, that what you saw was not a mental health commitment hearing at all (which are usually handled by what we call "probate" judges) but a hearing in a regular criminal proceeding (usually before a District Judge or a Circuit Judge) based on a petition by the prosecutor to have the criminal defendant sent for a psychiatric exam to determine if he was mentally competent to stand trial? If that's the case, I can see a very short hearing if the defendant made some smart ass or goofy remark back to the Judge (and almost none of what I have said in this thread would apply to such a hearing as they are totally separate beasts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lvdkeyes Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 It was definitely a mental health commitment hearing. There were no criminal proceedings pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Here is another article about a guy that is probably “off his rocker.†LIMA, Peru – "They call me the hardware store," says Requelme Abanto from his hospital bed in northern Peru. Doctors in the city of Cajamarca said they removed 1.5 pounds of metal from Abanto's stomach, including nails, coins, and rusted copper wire and scrap metal. Cajamarca hospital surgeon Carlos Delgado told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he's never seen anything like what he found in last week's operation. "We went in thinking it could be appendicitis, but weren't we surprised by what we found — a hole in his stomach," Delgado said. Delgado said specialists are examining Abanto's mental health as he recovers. The 26-year-old construction worker ate the metal for months, and told Peru's Channel 9 television that he may now do it in public "as sport." "I swallowed 17 nails in February and didn't die," he said. "Five-inch nails, all in one day." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_fe_st/lt_odd_peru_nail_swallower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WannaGo Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Thankfully, most states have tougher laws on committing a person to a mental health facility than in years past. Florida has an infamous mental hospital called Chattahoochee (they made a movie about it, starring Gary Oldman) not too far from where I live. Used to be that a person could get sent there for little reason and just disappear, but the abuses there caused changes in state law, and it's been cleaned up some since then. Still, I've been up there a few times, and parts of it still haven't changed much since the '50s. Can be kind of spooky. A local cop is suspected of murdering his ex-girlfriend on the grounds a few weeks ago. Here is another article about a guy that is probably “off his rocker.†There's a difference between insanity and stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wino Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 There's a difference between insanity and stupidity.It is hard to tell the difference, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts