Sometimes, when prosecutors and judges are unsure how to sentence a defendant in a criminal case, they will request what is called a 90-day diagnostic. This process, which involves a person being sent to prison for 90 days for evaluation, can have significant implications. It can determine if the person is a suitable candidate for probation, potentially avoiding prison, or if they should be incarcerated based on various factors.

Over the last twenty-five years, I've conducted numerous 90-day diagnostics. Increasingly, I don't believe they are the answer in criminal cases. Unfortunately, in my experience in prison, they often conduct these 90-day diagnostics in a sloppy and lazy manner. For instance, they might rush through the evaluation, not thoroughly examining the person's issues. Very rarely is there a trained, sophisticated psychiatrist examining the person in prison. They don't take their time.

One significant concern of mine is that often, they expect the person to admit to every single crime they're charged with, including every detail, when in reality, that's not what happened from the person's perspective. So, you're asking the person to lie and say, ' Yes, I did this basically,' and 'I did that,' instead of really trying to get an understanding of what happened and whether the person is telling you the truth. Perhaps not all the details the police recorded are entirely accurate. Why don't you think about it for a minute and make a judgment call instead of just saying that the person didn't admit exactly what they claimed they were doing, so therefore, we think they're guilty? They're not admitting responsibility for it, so we think they should just go to prison.

I find that most 90-day diagnostics in Los Angeles and throughout California are a big waste of time. I don't usually have my clients participate in them due to the time wasted and the way they're run. I would rather use our own experts, our own psychiatrists and let them provide a report to the prosecution and judge as to what they think should happen with the client – somebody who has all the details from our perspective – our version of events – instead of somebody who has taken the case cold and really doesn't have the time or energy to put in to do it the right way.

So, I always vote no for a 90-day diagnostic. Sometimes I've been forced to do one, though. I just did one recently because the court said Before I'll give your client probation, I need a 90-day diagnostic. The judge's role in this process is crucial, as they ultimately decide the sentence based on the diagnostic's recommendation. I said okay, but I'm telling you right now, Your Honor, every time these guys don't do a good job. They take forever. They don't do it the right way. Anyway, it was funny because the 90-day diagnostic came back, of course, recommending prison because they didn't assess that my client had some mental illnesses at the time that his crime occurred. So, he viewed the crime one way, even though he was willing to accept responsibility for it – he remembered it a certain way, and since he didn't recount it the way the police did, of course, they recommended prison. But the judge still gave him probation. And the judge, I think, even though he didn't admit it, agreed that I was right – that it was a big waste of time doing the 90-day diagnostic.

Therefore, if you're facing a situation where a 90-day diagnostic is being suggested, it's important to consult with a knowledgeable attorney. Someone who has been through 90-day diagnostics in LA before can guide you on how to handle it effectively, ensuring the right outcome for your criminal case in Los Angeles. Remember, it's crucial to avoid relying solely on diagnostics and take control of your legal situation.