STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF
V. DANIEL CARTER. DEFENDANT



DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURTS ORDER REQUIRING DEFENSE COUNSEL TO FILE
VERIFICATION RELATING TO COUNSELS VIEW OF
COMPETENCE OF DEFENDANT


Defense Counsel does not believe the Defendant is competent to stand
trial, make decisions regarding a plea agreement, or comprehend the
consequences of his decisions, It is also clear that competency
issues thus far have been concerned primarily with mental illness or
retardation suffered by adult defendants. The fact that developmental
immaturity renders an adolescent incompetent has been ignored by our
judicial system. Although Daniel Carter has been evaluated for
competency, the assessment tools used were tools designed for adults
with a focus upon 'disorder' rather than 'immaturity' and restoration
of competency' rather than 'achievement.' An adult competency
examination is not going to adequately assess the competency of a
child. Furthermore, in making a legal decision, an adult is able to
knowingly opt for immediate gratification at the expense of future
welfare. An adolescent cannot intelligently and knowingly make such a
decision because they do not possess the requisite developmental
maturity. An adolescent does not even have the physical frontal lobe
development of an adult. A child may make a different legal decision
than he would as an adult. If Daniel Carter were an adult he may not
make the same decisions he is now making.

Society recognizes this inherent incompetence and hence does not
allow minors to legally enter into a contractual arrangement, drive a
vehicle without an adult present or attend movies that contain too
much violence. Pretending this same child, that in society is
incompetent, is suddenly rendered competent by his or her presence in
an adult courtroom seems less than realistic.

The same Due Process concerns that prohibit us from allowing an
incompetent adult to stand trial because of mental illness or
retardation, should be applied to adolescents because of
developmental immaturity. It has been my personal concern that Daniel
is pursuing a course of action possibly as an act of compliance to
those he perceives to be in authority.

All conversations with Daniel Carter have been fruitless because he
is unable to appreciate this distinction precisely because of his
developmental immaturity. In October, I had already consulted a
forensic psychologist on this very issue, prior to the Tate decision,
because as a former teacher I recognized the inherent problem of
Daniel making a decision regarding a specific course of action.

WHEREFORE, Defense Counsel would respectfully suggest a pretrial
conference regarding this matter,


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was provided to
the Assistant State Attorney, David Rimmer, this February 16,2004.

Patrece Cashwell