The criminal case involving Jimmy Snuka is sad on a number of levels. First and foremost, an individual lost her life and, if the loss of life is due to a homicide, justice absolutely is owed. In addition, the accused has been presented as an individual with extremely diminished capacities who is incapable of even understanding the nature of the proceedings against him.
It should be made perfectly clear that the former is in no way justified, excused, or diminished by the latter. There absolutely is no question in this case that if Jimmy Snuka committed the alleged offenses, he did so at a time when he was of sound mind and body. This is an important distinction to be made in discussing the most recent court order that adjudged Mr. Snuka unfit to stand trial.
Most people are familiar with an insanity defense, or in legal terms, a plea of not guilty by reason of mental defect. In such situations, a criminal defendant actually admits that he or she committed the alleged crime, but should be exonerated nonetheless because he or she was suffering from some form of mental disorder at the time.
The reasoning behind such a defense is that we don’t wish to punish an individual criminally if he or she was in a state of mind at the time that prevented him or her from actually understanding the actions and the consequences of these actions. If successful, such a defense results in a commitment to a mental institution where the individual will be held until he or she is safe to return to society.
The Snuka situation is considerably different. In fact, what his attorneys have sought and achieved is not even considered to be a defense. Mr. Snuka’s attorneys have not conceded that he actually committed the crime and, as stated before, could not use any sort of current mental state to defend an action that occurred over thirty years ago.
Every criminal defendant in this country has the right to present a defense to the criminal charges. This includes the right to an attorney, the right to present witnesses, the right to cross-examine witnesses, etc. In order to do so, a defendant must be able to participate in the defense if he or she so chooses.
Matters become complicated when an individual cannot participate in that defense for any number of reasons. For instance, trial would have to be delayed if a defendant was in a coma or in some other physical way was unable to participate in the defense. Likewise, trial can be delayed if a defendant currently lacks the mental capacity to assist in the defense.
This is precisely what was argued by Mr. Snuka’s attorneys and that was the basis of the most recent ruling in this matter. After testimony from a number of witnesses, including medical experts, the judge determined that Mr. Snuka lacked the mental capacity to understand the charges that have been brought against him and to assist in his own defense. As a result, the criminal case against him cannot proceed at this time.
What does this mean for the future?
While I have yet to see the specific order, it appears that another competency hearing will take place in approximately six months. At this point, it will be up to the prosecutor to determine if he or she wishes to proceed with the charges.
An individual’s mental state is a fluid situation and there certainly is a possibility that Mr. Snuka could present as being more lucid at a later date. If the prosecution determines that the situation will not improve anytime in the near future, a decision also could be made to dismiss the charges at this point.
Given the severity of the alleged offense, I would imagine that the prosecutor at least will attempt one more competency hearing before agreeing to dismiss the case. Some hearing down the road likely would contain more testimony about Mr. Snuka’s long-term prognosis to assist the prosecutor and the judge in determining if continuing to pursue the charges is a worthwhile use of resources.
In the end, it simply is a sad situation that is marred by the fact that Mr. Snuka’s current mental state may make it impossible to learn the truth about this untimely death. Nevertheless, the rights that have been enforced on behalf of Mr. Snuka are incredibly important cornerstones of our legal system.
