Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Competency Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge orders competency restoration for Tamara Stamper at state psychiatric center
Summary
After a forensic evaluation, the court ordered Tamara Stamper transported to the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center for competency restoration, authorizing up to 60 days for treatment and evaluation.
Judge David Williams ordered competency-restoration evaluation and treatment for defendant Tamara Stamper after a forensic evaluator told the court Stamper can appreciate proceedings but "lacks the capacity to participate rationally in her own defense." The judge signed an order directing restoration efforts at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC) and permitted up to 60 days for treatment and re-evaluation.
The court heard testimony from Dr. Sparks, a forensic evaluator, who said he had reviewed court-ordered records, police reports and interviewed Stamper and her daughter before reaching his conclusions. "It's my opinion that, miss Stamper has the capacity does have the capacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her, but that she lacks the capacity to participate rationally in her own defense," Dr. Sparks told the court. He recommended restoration at KCPC and said restoration typically occurs within 30 days and "rarely" requires more than 60 days.
Defense counsel advised the court that Stamper told the defense she did not believe she needed KCPC treatment; the attorney registered that objection on Stamper's behalf. The court explicitly noted the difference between a defendant's stated preference and the professional opinion presented: the judge said he would enter an order to pursue restoration despite Stamper's expressed wishes.
The judge instructed that, if ordered, Stamper would be placed on KCPC's waiting list and transported once a bed was available. The court record indicates the order was entered to initiate restoration efforts and to return the case for further proceedings after the KCPC evaluation or the authorized period elapsed.
The order does not set a specific release date; restoration and any subsequent scheduling depend on KCPC assessment and whether competency is restored within the authorized period. The court advised counsel that if restoration proved unsuccessful within the period, further hearings or orders would follow to address competency and case disposition.
Ending: The court entered the restoration order and moved the matter forward to KCPC evaluation; the case will return to court after the facility's evaluation or at the end of the authorized restoration period for next steps and potential scheduling.
