Psychiatrist’s findings questioned in court hearing

EL CENTRO — Jurors tasked with determining whether defendant Ioan Laurint is mentally competent to stand trial for murder heard testimony Wednesday from an expert who had previously determined Laurint was not competent.

Imperial County Behavioral Health Services psychiatrist Dr. Aimee Ang was the sole witness to take the stand Wednesday. She had previously authored a report in April that found Laurint not competent to stand trial.

Ang’s report was based on her meeting in April with Laurint at the county jail, during which time the defendant reportedly appeared disheveled, was constantly mumbling to himself and failed to sustain any sort of eye contact. Laurint also reportedly failed to respond to questions about his status and the court proceedings that Ang posed to determine Laurint’s capability to assist with his own defense.

“I tried to communicate with him, but I couldn’t get anything out of him,” she said.

Ang’s determination was also influenced by her review of medication that Laurint has been taking, including psychotropic medication that are often prescribed to combat the audio and visual hallucinations that Laurint reportedly suffers from, she said.

Ang’s report also disclosed that she had considered it a “remote possibility” that the behavior displayed by Laurint may have been faked, but it was more likely that the behavior stemmed from an alleged history of mental illness.

During direct examination, Ang also conceded that she had limited training in determining whether a patient was faking their symptoms, a technical term referred to as malingering.

On Wednesday, county Assistant District Attorney Deborah Owen spent a considerable amount of time questioning Ang about the extent of her evaluation of Laurint and whether enough consideration was given to determine the possibility of him faking his symptoms.

During cross examination, Ang stated she did not take any action to evaluate whether Laurint was faking his symptoms and that she did not receive the requisite explicit instructions from her employer to do so. Owen was also able to get Ang to disclose that her other job demands prevented her from spending an unlimited amount of time evaluating Laurint, which in hindsight Ang conceded may not have been enough to determine whether he was faking his symptoms.

“I believe I did what I could given the time I was given,” Ang said.

Further questioning by Owen revealed that Ang’s testimony on Wednesday and her April report overstated by 10 minutes the actual amount of time she had spent evaluating Laurint at the jail. Ang’s diagnosis in her report that Laurint suffered from a personality disorder not otherwise specified was also based on an outdated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, her testimony revealed.

Ang did clarify that other practicing psychiatrists use the same outdated volume of the DSM that she used to diagnose Laurint.

Two additional mental health professionals are scheduled to testify today who concluded, similarly to Ang, that Laurint was not competent to stand trial. As for a fourth and final mental health evaluation requested by the Imperial County District Attorney’s Office that determined Laurint was competent to stand trial, its findings were likely influenced by the evaluation having been conducted in English, a language which Laurint speaks and understands in a limited capacity, Levine said.

“The only reasonable conclusion more likely than not is that Mr. Laurint is not competent,” he told the jurors during his opening statement.

Testimony on Wednesday had been slightly delayed by arguments heard in the absence of the jury regarding the admissibility of information considered to be hearsay.

In one instance, county Superior Court Judge L. Brooks Anderholt ruled that a hospital report’s reference to Laurint having been negatively impacted by the death of his father in 2004 amounted to hearsay, despite Levine’s objections.In another instance, Anderholt allowed counsel to question Ang, in the absence of the jury, to determine whether certain information should be admitted to the court record.

That information dealt with whether a county jail employee’s medical report that contained notations about Laurint possibly faking his physical ailments had any bearing on him possibly faking his mental illness.

“I’d definitely take that into consideration because that is related behavior,” Ang said.

By law, Laurint is presumed to be mentally competent to stand trial, and the burden of proof to establish his incompetency rests with the defense. In order to be found competent, the defendant must understand the court proceedings taking place, be able to assist in his defense and understand his status and his condition in the court proceedings.

The current civil proceeding to determine Laurint’s mental competency has placed his criminal case on hold. He is accused of killing El Centro-based attorney Ann Marie Zimmermann on Feb. 17, 2017.