Lay witnesses and more information led to different conclusion for Mitchell case

SALT LAKE CITY — Although Monday's decision that Brian David Mitchell is competent to stand trial is considered a major step toward reaching a resolution in the saga, it is not the first time that the path has supposedly been cleared for him to go to trial.

In August 2004, Mitchell was ruled competent in 3rd District Court and a 12-day trial was scheduled to begin Feb. 1, 2005. But after consecutive court hearings in which Mitchell was removed for disrupting the proceedings by singing hymns, Judge Judith Atherton ordered a new competency hearing. In December 2005, Mitchell was then ruled incompetent to stand trial.

Following three years of legal battles, which included doctors at the Utah State Hospital testifying that Mitchell refused to participate in any sessions or treatment, Atherton ruled in 2008 that Mitchell was not eligible for involuntary medication to restore his competency. The day after that ruling was made, federal prosecutors announced they would move forward with their indictment.

In 2009, an 11-day competency hearing was held in U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball's courtroom, which led to Monday's ruling.

Acting U.S. Attorney for Utah Carlie Christensen said Monday she had "great respect" for the state court and Atherton's ruling. But she believed the difference between Atherton's and Kimball's rulings was that Kimball "had the benefit of additional information."

"There was undeniably a difference in the information presented," she said.

Because Mitchell refused to participate in treatment at the Utah State Hospital, federal prosecutors called upon former and current hospital staff workers, friends, family and former co-workers to testify how Mitchell acted when he felt like he wasn't being observed by professionals.

In his ruling Monday, Kimball noted the testimonies from those lay witnesses weighed into his decision.

"The court, however, having now had the opportunity to view the evidence in context during the competency hearing is more persuaded than before as to the relevance and necessity of this evidence to the court's determination of competency. Mitchell's refusal to participate in the process makes this information necessary to a full understanding of his condition," Kimball wrote.

Kimball determined that Mitchell's condition had not significantly changed over time. And based on the testimony he heard from both lay and expert witnesses, he agreed with prosecutors that Mitchell used his religious persona to obtain sex and whatever else he wanted.