Trial against man accused in fatal BART stabbing could be delayed again
OAKLAND » The trial of a man accused of fatally slashing the throat of 18-year-old Nia Wilson on a BART platform last year could be delayed again after his defense attorney questioned his mental competency in court Friday.
Cowell, 29, is accused of killing Wilson and trying to kill her sister on July 25, 2018, at the MacArthur BART station in Oakland. Wilson’s death gained national attention, as some speculated the attack was race-fueled.
On Friday before Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Cramer, Cowell’s defense attorney Christina Moore expressed doubt about her client’s mental competency.
Because Cowell pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity last month, two doctors were assigned to evaluate his current mental state. But one doctor said Cowell refused to meet with her, according to Moore. The doctor told Moore there should be competency proceedings again, the attorney said.
Judge Cramer is scheduled to decide Monday whether to suspend proceedings again for another evaluation by court-appointed psychologists. Cramer said he wanted to review the past doctors’ reports and didn’t want to rush his decision.
Cowell’s trial was supposed to start on Jan. 6, after he declared he wanted a speedy trial at a previous hearing. However, if there’s another round of competency proceedings, it likely will delay the start of the trial.
If he’s found incompetent to stand trial, his criminal case could be suspended indefinitely until, and if, his competency is restored.
This isn’t the first time Cowell’s mental state was questioned: Moore similarly questioned her client’s mental state in December 2018 and three doctors were appointed to evaluate him. One doctor found he was competent, the other did not, and a third could not reach a conclusion; but a judge ultimately ruled in July he was competent to stand trial.
On Friday, Judge Cramer also denied a motion by the First Amendment Coalition to unseal criminal grand jury transcripts from Cowell’s
indictment. The coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates for government transparency, argued the transcripts should be made public, especially after some information from them was already revealed in a recent hearing.
In a response to the motion, Moore argued there was a reasonable likelihood that unsealing the transcripts could taint a jury pool and deprive Cowell of a fair trial. She cited a phone survey conducted of 470 Alameda County residents, in which 72% said they were familiar with the case. And of those, 81% said they believed he was probably guilty or definitely guilty, according to the motion.
Amy Chi, a law student who argued the motion under lead attorney
Susan Seager, said a survey should not be admissible because it doesn’t state who conducted it. She also argued jurors would be questioned during jury selection as well.
Cramer agreed with the defense the grand jury transcripts could taint opinions if publicly released, noting the survey result numbers were “shocking.” The judge also cited the already significant extent of news coverage the case has drawn.
The case attracted nationwide discussions and speculation that it was a hate crime attack: Nia Wilson, a young African American woman, was allegedly attacked by a white man she did not know. However, Cowell has not been charged with a hate crime.
During the Nov. 22 hearing, attorneys on both sides revealed new information told to the criminal grand jury. Cowell had a backpack with him filled with at least seven prescriptions, including medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and he allegedly covered his head with a hood and put on glasses before attacking the Wilson sisters.
Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Micheal O’Connor also revealed in his arguments that the sisters had just said goodbye to a “wee baby,” as a woman with a baby stroller walked by. He argued that Wilson was exposed and vulnerable in the moments right before the attack.
Cowell will be back in court before Judge Cramer on Monday.