There is agreement on one crucial fact in the Lishan Wang murder case: Dr. Wang must be examined by a psychiatric expert before his murder trial can begin.
But now, as a result of an unusual turn of events a potentially thorny legal issue — possibly a thorny constitutional issue — has emerged: Who pays for the expert? And what happens if no one will?
Under Connecticut law an indigent defendant must be represented by the public defender’s office in order to have his witness expenses paid for by the state.
But at a hearing in Superior Court one week ago, Dr. Wang, who is indigent, remained adamant that he continue to represent himself. He has turned down the right to have a public defender represent him except on a stand-by basis, but the public defender’s office says that status doesn’t qualify. Stand-by representation is not sufficient for trial costs.
Melissa Bailey File Photo
Superior Court Judge Roland B. Fasano (pictured) implored him to seek a compromise. The judge was seeking a way to avoid stalling a trial that at this point looks like it won’t be ready to go until next spring, roughly three years since Dr. Wang is charged with allegedly gunning down Dr. Vajinder Toor outside his Branford condo one April morning.
Dr. Wang maintains that Dr. Toor fabricated stories about him that led to Dr. Wang’s firing from from Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center in 2008 and ultimately to the end of his medical career.
JUDGE MAKES PLEA FOR COMPROMISE
Judge Fasano made his plea: “I am going to ask you to let the public defender represent you. They have the resources; they can take care of many expenses. Not only that but they have the expertise. You can ultimately decide to represent yourself at trial. I implore you to do this. You will have the experts. I am going to implore you to do this prior to trial.”
The required psychiatrist’s report will help Dr. Wang, he said, to decide his defense in the murder of his former colleague. Senior State’s Attorney Eugene R. Calistro, Jr. also is entitled to know what Dr. Wang’s defense will be, for example, whether it is extreme emotional disturbance or something else. And the judge, too, must be informed. But all that requires a psychiatric examination.
The problem is that if Dr. Wang insists on representing himself and if he will use the public defender’s office only as stand-by counsel, as he does now, how will his expenses for a psychiatrist and other experts be paid? Without experts, a trial cannot begin. No trial date has been set.
At a previous hearing on June 27, Superior Court Judge Roland B. Fasano raised the psychiatric expert witness issue, asking public defender Jeffrey LaPierre if his office would pay the costs of the psychiatric expert even though the office was on stand-by only. LaPierre informed him this was not the office policy. By last week’s hearing the judge had confirmed there was no give to the public defender’s position. Stand-by representation does not qualify for witness benefits. Nor would the judicial system pay, the judge said.
So the judge turned to Dr. Wang, who appeared in court in a baggy orange jump suit, seeking a compromise. He could represent himself at trial but for now let the public defender handle the case.
Wang replied: “Thank you your honor. I still want to represent myself. I have a good reason why I want to represent myself. When I was at the Whiting Institution [a state mental facility], the public defender did not agree with the psychiatrist at Whiting. He sent another psychiatrist to see me and he found I was not competent to stand trial. The second psychiatrist did not agree with Whiting. The public defender may have lots of expertise. But this is about my life and my family.” (Wang’s family has never appeared at any court session.)
Judge Fasano explained to Dr.Wang that while a psychiatrist found him competent to stand trial, the public defender “really had an obligation to do this and he went the extra mile. It is simply doing their job.” Dr. Wang did not accept the judge’s interpretation. From his point of view the public defender acted against his interests.
ATTORNEY WANG FACES FUNDING ISSUE
It later turned out that Judge Fasano agreed that Dr.Wang was competent to stand trial, and he later ruled he was entitled to represent himself. Once he received that designation Dr. Wang has used his stand-by counsel minimally. For example, Dr. Wang arrived in court with three motions, last week which neither the defense, prosecutor or judge had seen or read before the court session began.
In fact, court began 45 minutes late because LaPierre needed to explain the funding dilemma to his stand-by client, which he did in an office adjacent to the courtroom.
The judge told Dr. Wang that while he initially approved funding for his investigator, he can no longer approve additional funds from the judicial budget.
“What it is coming down to is if you are represented by the public defender, it will be paid for. That is why I suggested that solution for the practical problem we have come up with. I do think we discussed this last session.”
Dr. Wang made a motion for a transcript of the July 27 hearing. The judge granted his motion.
Judge Fasano said this was the first time he had “fully articulated the money issue.” But it had been raised at the July 27 hearing. Dr. Wang later said in court that he “suffered from memory loss and mental illness.” As he usually does in a court session Wang also noted his “wrongful termination by KIngsbrook Hospital,” where he and Dr. Toor had a serious conflict that led the hospital to dismiss Dr. Wang, ending his medical career in 2008. He also noted that he had suffered from “memory loss and mental illness.”
ENTER THE JAILHOUSE LAWYER
Dr. Wang also mentioned that a friend he met in jail sent him some information about how different states provide expenses for indigent defendants.
He again said: “I want to represent myself regardless of the expense. Isn’t this a constitutional issue?” he wondered aloud.
The judge replied that the constitutional issue (under the 6th Amendment right to counsel) is fulfilled through the public defender office. The policy is you have to be represented by the public defender office to get expenses paid for witnesses.” The judge added that in some states you can get the funds without a public defender. There is a lot case law on this and it is complicated.” But Connecticut is not one of those states.
Dr. Wang said, “I would like to investigate it.”
The judge, who has conducted his own legal examination of the precedents and case law on the subject, said: “It is a complicated subject, let me tell you.”
Dr. Wang replied: “I want to reinforce that I want to represent myself and I want to continue to represent myself. I need some answers from my stand-by attorney and someone else I know.” Earlier he referred to a friend who is helping him, perhaps a jailhouse lawyer. “I still want to represent myself. I want to be able to progress easily. I need to hire an expert as this is in preparation for my trial.”
As for the motion Calistro filed in June, seeking to know if Dr. Wang is going to use the defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED). Dr.Wang answered in lawyer-like terms.
“The defendant cannot determine if EED is right. The defendant is unable to make an informed decision,” he told the judge, adding that he was aware that when the state files a motion “I need to respond to the motion.” He added that he had ten days, having clearly found out the rules in the practice book.
But Calistro had previously informed Dr. Wang he was waiving the deadline response and he repeated that statement in court again. The judge added: “We are not requiring you to respond. The prosecutor just said so. Not at this time. Your response to his motion is not needed at this point. “
Dr. Wang said, “Thank you, your honor.”
The next court date is set for Sept. 12 at 2 pm.
###