Why do Prosecutors Have to be so mean?

By Bob Bennett
The Daily News

Published March 28, 2006

Why are federal and state prosecutors beating up on mentally impaired persons?

Federal prosecutors indicted a part-time college professor for allegedly over-billing FEMA for evacuees that did not stay as long as they should.

This indictment was sought despite the feds being aware of Daniel Yeh’s mental incompetence.

The Harris County district attorney intended to start last Monday to re-try Andrea Yates after she killed her five children. Her first case ended in a conviction that was reversed because of prosecutorial error.

Many believe that Yates’ second trial could spotlight what some see as shortcomings in the state’s insanity law.

State and federal prosecutors continue to hold a slanted view of people who are mentally incompetent.

The response of the Yates’ prosecutors is to try her, convict her and send her to prison. This is also evident in the criminal indictment of Yeh and the feds’ press release about the same. Are the feds trying to get some good publicity for a federal agency, FEMA, which suffers from a deserved bad reputation?

In the fed’s press release, there was no mention that more than $232,000 was paid back, and there was no mention of the fact that Yeh has been suffering with brain tumors since 1994.

These omissions show a rush to judgment and a lack of sympathy for mentally impaired persons.

The feds were given appropriate and timely notice of Yeh’s incompetence by Yeh’s attorney, but the government nonetheless indicted Yeh. While it is unclear why the government chose this course, one thing is certain: It has been a modern trend for prosecutors to give little credence to the legitimacy of the truly mentally incompetent.

The societal stigma associated with raising an insanity/ incompetence defense has led to misunderstanding and failure to sympathize with the accused and their sickness.

Betsy Schwartz, executive director of the Mental Health Association of Greater Houston, recently addressed the Yates case, writing that “we all have a stake in the disposition of Andrea Yates’ case: that current scientific understand-ing of mental illness will prevail in our criminal justice system.”

Similarly in deciding to indict Yeh, the government fails to recognize that he is a 52-year-old Taiwanese man who has led an exemplary life despite his battle with possibly fatal brain tumors.

Following Yeh’s initial appearance in federal court, the prosecutor was quoted as saying, “We (the prosecution) think the defendant engaged in an active, deliberate and blatant scheme to defraud taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

The feds take this position despite the fact that any over-billed money was immediately reimbursed and despite the fact that medical professionals have raised the issue of Yeh’s competency.

The conviction of a legally incompetent person or the failure of a trial court to provide an adequate competency determination violates due process by depriving a person of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

The feds have already recouped more than it was over-billed and is now expending funds and valuable resources to prosecute a case against a sick man.

Obviously, the government waste that occurred post-Katrina has carried over into the federal government’s prosecutorial and decision making policy.

A reasonable solution should be reached in the Yates case that would avoid another media trial.

Likewise, the Flagship Hotel case should be handled as a civil matter since the money has been paid back and to prosecute the mentally incompetent is prosecutorial over-reaching.

Bob Bennett, a Houston attorney, represents Daniel Yeh.