Competency and Insanity

*NOTE: The below should not be construed as a promise or guarantee of similar results. Results will vary depending on the particular facts and legal circumstances of each individual case.

State v. G.G. – Retired veteran and 81-year-old client with no prior criminal history was charged with 2nd degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose and 3rd degree terroristic threats.  The State alleged that during an argument with his wife of 65+ years, G.G. fired his gun in his wife’s direction, missing and hitting the wall.  The State wanted G.G. to serve 1 year in jail for these alleged offenses.  It was clear that not only did G.G. not intend to shoot in the direction of his wife, but he had extreme cognitive decline due to dementia that likely rendered him incompetent to have a criminal case proceeding against him.  Ms. Denholtz hired a trusted and well-respected expert who evaluated G.G. for competency.  After evaluating G.G., our expert concluded that he was not competent due to dementia and would not be able to be restored to competency through treatment or medications.  Based on Ms. Denholtz’s investigation, all charges against G.G. were ultimately dismissed.

State v. D.W. - Client was charged with sex offenses for allegedly flashing a minor and asking her for oral sex.  Ms. Denholtz, suspected that client may not be competent, and hired an expert to evaluate D.W. for competency.  Ms. Denholtz successfully argued for all of the charges dismissed after showing that the client was not competent to understand the proceedings or participate in his defense due to diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and extremely low intellectual functioning.

State v. A.M. – Client was charged with various domestic violence offenses (terroristic threats, weapons offenses, assault, contempt, trespass, etc.).  A.M. previously had a traumatic brain injury as a result of a motorcycle accident, which left him with significant cognitive difficulties and difficulties managing his anger.  Ms. Denholtz collected the client’s medical records then had an expert psychologist evaluate A.M. for competency issues.  After many months and several competency hearings, Ms. Denholtz convinced the Court that not only was A.M. not competent, but due to his traumatic brain injury, there was no likelihood that he could be restored to competency.  The State ultimately dismissed all charges pending against A.M.

State v. B.M. - Client was charged with making threats while in possession of a weapon.  Client had no prior criminal history but had a longstanding history of mental illness.  Ms. Denholtz sought out an expert to evaluate the client for competency.  The expert concluded that client had schizophrenia and a history of intellectual disability.  As such, the expert concluded that B.M. was unable to understand the role of the prosecutor, his right to testify or remain silent, the role of the judge, the concept of a plea offer, or the ability to assist in his own defense.  The expert also concluded that B.M. could not be restored to competency with treatment.  Based on Ms. Denholtz's investigation and advocacy, all of the charges against the client were dismissed.

State v. C.B. - Client was charged with making terroristic threats to his employer and harassment for allegedly sending over 200 emails to his employer threatening violence.  After extensive interviewing with C.B. and his family, Ms. Denholtz discovered that the client had a lengthy history of autism, bipolar disorder, low intellectual functioning, and involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations.  Ms. Denholtz subpoenaed all of the client’s medical and psychiatric records, then hired a well-known expert psychiatrist to evaluate the client for competency.  The expert concluded that C.B. was not competent and was unlikely to be able to be restored to competency due to his longstanding intellectual functioning, autism, and mental health issues.

State v. T.L. - T.L. had a total of 5 cases, where he was charged with various counts of aggravated assault for allegedly violently beating people completely unprovoked.  Due to mental illness, T.L. was almost completely non-verbal. Ms. Denholtz gathered all of the Client's psychiatric and medical records, then sought to have T.L. evaluated for competency by an expert. After three rounds of competency hearings, the Court found that T.L. was "restored" to competency through medication and treatment. Ms. Denholtz then hired an expert to evaluate T.L. for an insanity defense. The expert concluded that T.L. was Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity, due to his diagnosis of schizophrenia, extreme religious preoccupations, and extreme thought blocking.  After a testimonial bench trial where Ms. Denholtz was lead attorney responsible for all aspects of the trial, the Court found T.L. Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity and acquitted him of all charges. 

State v. K.K. - K.K. was charged with multiple counts of aggravated assault and various weapons and criminal mischief offenses.  It was very clear that K.K. was suffering from severe mental health illnesses that likely impacted her ability to understand her actions or to recognize they were wrong.  Ms. Denholtz hired an expert psychiatrist to evaluate K.K. and testify in Court that Client was not legally responsible for her actions because K.K. was manic, suffering from paranoid delusions, and psychotic at the time of the alleged offenses.  K.K. was facing up to 17 years in prison.  As a result of Ms. Denholtz’s actions, the Court found after a bench trial that K.K. was not guilty by reason of insanity and all of the charges against K.K. were dismissed.

State v. A.J. - Client was charged in 7 cases spanning 3 counties. Her charges included counts of 1st degree carjacking, 2nd degree eluding, and other related 3rd and 4th degree offenses. A.J. was facing up to 110.5 years in prison.  Ms. Denholtz successfully sought to have all of A.J.’s cases consolidated in Morris County for disposition. A.J. had no prior history of indictable offenses.  Ms. Denholtz learned that A.J. had a longstanding history of severe mental illness, including multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, and a history of suffering from paranoid delusions. Ms. Denholtz believed A.J. met all of the benchmarks for competency. However, A.J.’s details of the date of the incident, coupled with her longstanding history of severe mental illness led Ms. Denholtz to believe A.J. was Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity.  Ms. Denholtz hired a reputable and well-known psychiatrist who evaluated A.J. and came to the conclusion that A.J. was not guilty by reason of insanity because she was suffering from paranoid delusions at the time of the offenses.  We conducted a bench trial and presented the testimony from our expert.  The Court agreed A.J. was NGRI.  All of the charges and motor vehicle tickets pending against A.J. were dismissed, and the client was ordered to continue with mental health treatment and medications to manage her symptoms.