by Burl Barer
Anderson reviewed documents from Texas State Hospital where Glover was interviewed for fifty minutes, and again for thirty minutes on February 5. Her medical records from previous hospitals were reviewed at Texas State, and they inquired if Glover was aware of any head injuries she may have sustained.
“She has no knowledge of any head injuries. She acknowledged that she had developed a problem with alcohol, and that she sought treatment for her alcoholism by going to the Betty Ford Clinic in 1999. She was arrested for driving while intoxicated in 1989. She told Texas State Hospital that she was an active member of AA, and denied any use of illicit drugs. Her mother, however, reported that Glover’s treatment at Betty Ford in 1999 was for cocaine, as well as alcohol, and that more recently Ms. Glover had been using crack cocaine. She was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital on November 23, 2003, and she tested positive at that time for cocaine.”
This was Glover’s only known previous psychiatric hospitalization, and was triggered by her mother’s concern for Glover’s delusional thinking, including paranoid and grandiose content. Glover was kept for two days after which the court decided that she did not meet the criteria for continued involuntary commitment, although she had been prescribed Risperdal, an antipsychotic medication, and she had promptly stopped taking it.
More and more, Risperdal is not being prescribed for just schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses, but for behavioral disorders in children and in elderly patients with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, including delusions, aggression and anxiety. (The Public Citizen, a consumer group, is worried by the safety implications that have arisen in various clinical trials, showing the dangerous effects of Risperdal.)
Glover sought outpatient treatment in 2002, and continued staying in contact with mental-health services until 2004. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in March of 2003, and this was later changed to psychotic disorder, NOS.
“She received no medication while incarcerated,” said Anderson, “but at Texas State Hospital she was placed again on Risperdal, but that was changed to Seroquel. She has been compliant with the program. She denied any mental-health problems, and denied ever being diagnosed bipolar. She was cooperative during the interview, but did often provide excessive and unnecessary details. She denied having any psychotic symptoms, such as hearing voices or having special powers.”
Even though Anderson was now determining Glover to be competent to stand trial, she admitted that there remained characteristics to her thinking that Anderson defined as “of a suspicious nature.”
Anderson revealed that “Glover knew who and where she was. She did, however, misidentify the season of the year. The report concludes with her diagnosis, once again, of psychosis, with alcohol and cocaine abuse, lingering delusional thoughts and moderate psychological impairment displaying ongoing grandiose delusions. Glover’s social skills are impacted by her inability to be sensitive to the needs and feelings of others.
“Glover’s new attorney, James Sawyer, had reservations about his client’s ability to interact with him,” reported Anderson. “She has an established history of treatment for serious mental illness. She is not retarded. It is essential that she receive ongoing psychiatric care. Failure to follow these instructions will result in a deterioration of her condition and a return to incompetency.”
“In other words,” said Fred Wolfson, “take her to trial as fast as you can before she stops biting her tongue and shows just how incompetent she still is.”
One might think that if Glover was mentally incompetent on the day of her arrest, and for several months after, that she was also obviously mentally incompetent on the day she pulled the trigger. That might be true, but that was not the way the law worked.
Dr. Anderson’s apparent standard for competency was that Glover could refrain from revealing the true degree of her incompetence. In short, hiding the symptoms was equal to not having the illness. (This sheds light on Glover’s postconviction statements that there were important things that her lawyer would not allow her to talk about.) She was every bit as delusional as the day she was arrested, and to this day holds the same delusions as true and valid representation of reality.
“Had the rules regarding the insanity defense been different,” commented one observer, “I’m sure the plea would have been one of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity,’ or ‘guilty and insane,’ whichever was allowable in the state.”
In August of 2005, Rhonda Glover’s attorney made a motion to suppress the videotape of her confession. She did not want that tape played at her trial. The argument was based on Texas law that says: A statement made by a defendant during an examination or hearing on the defendant’s incompetency, the testimony of an expert based on that statement, and evidence obtained as a result of that statement may not be admitted in evidence against the defendant in any criminal proceeding.
Douglas K. O’Connell, of the district attorney’s office, countered that argument, saying, “It is clear that this law applies only to statements made by a defendant during a mental-health examination or during a competency hearing. The statements in question were made during an interview with Austin police detectives.”
Excluding statements made to a mental-health provider preserves a defendant’s Fifth Amendment protection. In this case Rhonda Glover wasn’t speaking to a mental health provider. In addition, Glover agreed to the admission of the tape at her competency trial, yet now sought to prohibit its use at a trial on the facts.
“A jury found the defendant was incompetent to stand trial on November 2, 2004. No verdict or ruling has ever held that the defendant was incompetent on July 27, 2004, the day she gave her confession to Detective Walker. Dr. Anderson testified that a portion of the video shown to the jury was an example of the tangential thinking displayed by the defendant. Dr. Anderson never testified that the defendant was incompetent as the time she gave her confession to Detective Walker. Nor did Dr. Anderson testify that she relied solely on the videotaped confession. Furthermore, Dr. Anderson did not testify that tangential thinking is definitive proof of incompetence. No further discussion of this issue is warranted,” said Douglas K. O’Connell, assistant district attorney.
At the time of Rhonda Glover’s arrest and trial, Texas law required tests of mental competence at several stages:
1.Before trial: Defendants must be able to understand the trial process and be able to communicate with their attorney and understand the proceedings. A judge may make the determination at an examining trial where the defendant is represented by an attorney and may present evidence from experts. The defendant may request a jury decision.
2.At the time of the crime: If the defendant claims at trial to be not guilty by reason of insanity, he must prove he did not know his conduct was wrong while committing the crime. As in any criminal trial, he may request a judge or a jury.
According to a new report by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), entitled “Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates,” more than half of all prison and jail inmates—including 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners and 64 percent of local jail inmates—were found to have a mental-health problem. Many suffered from treatable disorders such as bipolar disorder.
Whether or not Glover’s altered mental state on several occasions was due to overmedication or lack of medication is hotly debated, but the debate is between Rhonda Glover and everyone else.
“There is no real problem with being bipolar if you simply take your medication. If you neglect it, you have trouble,” commented Fred Wolfson. “This isn’t some big mystery, or some bizarre unknown in the field of mental health. There are bipolar folks functioning perfectly in all walks of life. You would never know they had a condition or an illness for the simple reason that they take their medication, just as people with a heart condition take their medication.”
Travis County deputy prosecutor Gail Van Winkle agreed, and cut Glover no slack for her condition—a con
dition Rhonda Glover denied having at all.
“Think of what she did on July 21, 2004,” said Van Winkle. “It was cold and calculated. Yes, she has mental illness. We all agree. There are many people in our community living with mental illness. There are many people out there in our community—our neighbors, our friends—who are bipolar, but they do not commit violent crimes. They do not take the lives of human beings.”
Los Angeles prosecutor Robin Sax shared similar sentiments: “Everyone who commits a murder must have a personality disorder. The personality disorder makes him a murderer who should be punished.”
Famed true crime author and journalist Steven Long took a divergent view. “I absolutely believe it is essential for the jury to know about the defendant’s mental illness, history of mental health problems and treatment, or lack of it,” Long said. “Suzy Spencer and I covered the Andrea Yates case together. If telling the jury the details of her treatment, and its absolute and utter failure, didn’t prevent a Texas jury from sending her, of all people, to prison, how on earth can it taint a prosecution?”
Andrea Campbell, author of Rights of the Accused, and a diplomat and fellow with the American College of Forensic Examiners International, has admitted to being torn on this issue. While she believed that the mental condition of the defendant should be made known during trial, she didn’t think they should be “cut any slack” for heinous crimes or felonies. The goal, she asserted, is to keep dangerous people out of society, be it by putting them in prison or in a mental institution.
“We are talking about far more than a cranky personality disorder,” commented researcher Travis Webb. “What I’ve seen, Glover has a documented history of severe mental illness, intervention by Austin Police’s EDP personnel and medical prescriptions for mental-health medications.”
Crime author Kathryn Casey has taken the position that if people know right from wrong, and are capable of working with their attorney, the issue of mental health should not be raised when the jury is considering guilt or innocence. If raised at all, it should only be during the punishment phase.
There is no comprehensive basis of agreement on this issue due to significant gaps between what people believe, what the law states and what brain researchers have learned in the last few years. As for the entire issue of “right and wrong,” murderers with antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and even borderline personality disorder understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong.
Outspoken journalist/filmmaker John Semander was not reticent to share his opinion on the topic. “I personally think a jury is too often shielded from pertinent details that would make their civic duty of assigning guilt or innocence a whole hell of a lot easier,” said Semander. “Yes, I am aware that in all likelihood I am siding with the defense on this one. Odd for someone like me who is so vocal in his zero-tolerance rants against the insanity that is our nation’s criminal justice system.
“The example [of the Rhonda Glover trial],” stated Semander, “seems to lean toward a prosecutor wanting to hide mental illness from a jury out of fear that it would elicit sympathy. For the same reason I could see a defense attorney wanting it brought up as an excuse for his client’s criminal behavior. How many times do you hear about a poor victim getting their name dragged through the mud in an effort to establish some sort of pattern that might possibly cast a shadow of doubt on a defendant? Same thing as wanting a jury to hear about someone who thought they were doing ‘God’s will’ when they machine-gunned a crowded bus stop. So, lay it all out for the jury and let them decide for themselves whether or not to totally disregard it. The bottom line is that too much information can work both ways. So if I’m on a jury, tell me everything there is to know about who’s on trial and who they wronged. Tell me straight up so I can make an educated decision about their fate, based on the facts-as-they-are and not the facts-as-I-know-them. ”
Caitlin Rother, author of the best seller Body Parts, is an investigative journalist who has grappled with this same issue on more than one occasion. “The murder cases I find most fascinating to write about are the ones with complex psychological aspects to the crime and/or to the defendant,” said Rother. “Yes, I think it’s important for the jury to know all about a defendant’s mental-health issues and history of commitments. How else can the jury determine the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime?”
Rother has maintained that the jury should know of the defendant’s mental issues during both the guilt/innocence and punishment/mitigation phases.
“Although some judges might disagree,” she said, “I believe this would be even more important when the defendant believes God has commanded him to kill, which clearly shows deep delusional thinking, especially if that thinking is resolved after medication.”
Rhonda Glover never received focused and comprehensive psychiatric treatment specifically for the reduction or elimination of her paranoid and delusional thinking. Her visits to mental institutions were either involuntary commitments or court-ordered commitments for the purpose of making her competent enough to stand trial for murder.
The involuntary commitments resulted in diagnosis, but as she was neither homicidal nor suicidal, she could not be held for treatment against her will. After her arrest the goal was not to eliminate her delusions, but rather to get her medicated to a point where she could agree not to mention them. “The ability to not mention your delusions,” said Fred Wolfson, “is apparently the standard of competency in Texas.”
“I am beyond competent,” said Rhonda Glover. “I am on a mission from God. That’s why people say I’m crazy.”
14
Once Rhonda Glover was determined competent to stand trial, the process picked up where it left off. Everything would play out in the courtroom of Judge Mike Lynch. Both the defense and the prosecution started pulling together their witness lists. One witness that the prosecution felt was most important was Patti Swenson.
Prior to the trial Patricia Swenson received a telephone call from Rhonda Glover, who was inside the mental hospital. “She said that she knew that I was going to be a witness,” recalled Swenson, “and Rhonda demanded to know what I told the police. I told Rhonda that I told the police that I believed that she murdered Jimmy, because she said that she was going to do it. Rhonda denied having said she was going to do anything.”
“You did too,” countered Swenson.
“You were drunk,” said Glover, “you don’t remember what we were talking about.”
“I do, too, remember,” insisted Swenson.
“We were at Mulligan’s and you had been drinking,”
Glover reminded her, “so you don’t remember what we talked about.”
Swenson didn’t mention Mulligan’s. She didn’t say where or when the conversation took place. Rhonda Glover, however, specifically identified Mulligan’s, pinpointing exactly where and when she told Swenson that she was going to do something to Jimmy Joste.
“That is really tragically humorous,” said Jeff Reynolds. “Rhonda calling Patti to tell her, ‘You don’t remember that night at Mulligan’s when I told you I wanted to kill Jimmy.’ If she didn’t remember before, this phone call would certainly bring it all back home.”
The trial of Rhonda Glover for the murder of James Martin Joste would take place in the courtroom of Judge Mike Lynch, a man of vast experience eager to explain what it was like to be a judge in Travis County.
“I have served as the judge of this court since 1993,” said Judge Lynch. “Before that, I practiced law as a criminal defense attorney for nine years and as a prosecutor for five years. The One hundred sixty-seventh District Court is a felony criminal court. We handle cases for which a person, if convicted, could receive sentences ranging from six months in a state jail to life in prison, or in a capital murder case, the death penalty.
“This court has approximately eight hundred pending cases at any given time,” explained Lynch. “Most of these are dispos
ed of through plea bargain agreements—the defendant agrees to plead guilty and the state agrees to recommend a lighter punish- ment than if the case proceeded to trial. This process, while criticized at times, is the only way to move a massive docket like the one we have. As the judge, I preside over the actual plea of guilty to insure that the defendant understands his rights and exactly what he is doing. I also have the right to reject any agreement that I believe is unreasonable or not in the interest of justice.”
A defendant can also plead guilty even without an agreement with the state and ask the judge to sentence him to less time than the state is requesting. In this scenario he must accept the judge’s decision, even if it’s not what he wanted.
“A defendant can plead ‘not guilty’ at arraignment and have his case tried before a jury,” Lynch explained. “In a felony case there are twelve jurors selected, and the verdict must be unanimous. If convicted, a defendant has the right to have either the jury or judge assess his punishment. He must make this decision prior to trial. A defendant may also waive a jury, with the agreement of the state and have his case tried on all issues before the judge.”
During a jury trial it is the judge’s duty to oversee the proceedings, including hearings on pretrial motions, jury selection, presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, as well as provide the jury with the applicable law and instructions to guide their deliberations.
“In addition,” said Lynch, “it is the judge’s duty to maintain proper decorum in the court and to insure that a fair and orderly trial occurs. The judge must be impartial and evenhanded, regardless of the facts or situation, and he must exhibit this fairness at all times during court proceedings.”
A district judge in Travis County also has several administrative duties. In addition to overseeing a docket of several hundred pending cases, each judge serves on a board that oversees the adult probation department and a separate board to govern the juvenile court system. Judges also serve on the Community Justice Council, Bail Bond Board and many other boards and committees dealing with criminal justice issues. District judges also oversee the formation, empanelling and operation of grand juries.