Friday marked the end of five days of testimony by medical experts who evaluated Menzies, a 66-year-old man diagnosed with dementia, who was sentenced to death in 1988 for kidnapping and murdering Maurine Hunsaker, a 26-year-old gas station clerk.
On Dec. 9, Menzies’ attorneys will call another witness, Lynette Abrams-Silva, a neuropsychologist who evaluated Menzies and determined he was not competent enough to be executed. Abrams-Silva, who already testified this week, will respond to the state’s medical experts who deemed Menzies competent.
The Hunsaker family will also address the court. Oral arguments will come next, then in the following weeks, 3rd District Court Judge Matthew Bates will issue a written ruling.
That means a final decision as to whether Menzies is competent could potentially not come until January.
Per Utah code, and U.S. Supreme Court case law, if an inmate cannot rationally understand why they’re being executed, they can be deemed incompetent.
If they don’t understand why they’re being executed, “then society’s goals of retribution and deterrence are not being vindicated,” said Menzies’ attorney, Eric Zuckerman, following Friday’s hearing.
“So the Supreme Court case law says that you have to rationally understand, and if not, then there’s really no point in going forward,” he said.
So far, the medical experts all agree that Menzies is mentally impaired in some way. But in the last five days, the court heard conflicting reports.
What is the true extent of Menzies’ declining memory? Is it just normal aging, made worse by the stress of prison and several concussions, or does he have vascular dementia? Can he go about basic daily activities like organizing his cell, managing his finances, operating the laundry machines, or making coffee? Were medical experts able to establish a rapport with Menzies when evaluating him, which could impact his memory and willingness to participate? And did the medical experts omit or not review important data?
The answer to those questions depends on who you ask. The medical experts hired by the state say Menzies is competent, while the medical experts hired by his attorneys say he isn’t. Ultimately, the decision will be left to Bates, the judge.
“Over the course of this week we’ve presented substantial evidence from qualified medical experts that Mr. Menzies’ has vascular dementia and that he’s not competent to be executed,” said Zuckerman. “Our experts are highly qualified. They’re all board certified. And we believe that the evidence that we presented really presents a very strong case as to why Mr. Menzies has vascular dementia. Their experts disagree.”
This week, a forensic psychologist with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, and a neuropsychologist contracted by the state testified that after evaluating Menzies, they believe he is competent enough to understand what he did and that he is to be executed.
“He understands that an execution is pending, he understands that it’s pending on the charge of murder … he knows that the ‘state wants to kill me because I killed a person and killing people is wrong,’” Michael Brooks with the Department of Health and Human Services told the court on Tuesday.
Matt Hunsaker, the son of Maurine Hunsaker, told Utah News Dispatch that he believes Menzies is competent, but isn’t sure how the judge will rule. It’s been a long week for Hunsaker, who for the first time in years in the same room as his mother’s killer.
“It is difficult. There is a lot of animosity,” he said. “But I’m not looking to do anything, I’m not looking to create a scene in the courtroom. I’m there to represent my mom, to be there in the fight for her justice.”
“We are definitely ready for this to be over,” he said.
This story was originally published by the Utah News Dispatch.
