Who Decides Which Oregonians Are Sane Enough to Go on Trial?

“You don’t want to make someone decide whether they’re going to plead guilty, on a murder, thinking that the trial is controlled by supernatural beings.”

In 2019, a man named Salvador Martinez-Romero stabbed four people during a meth-fueled crime spree in Beaverton. After his arrest, he was deemed psychologically unfit to stand trial, and sent to Oregon’s one psychiatric hospital, which kept Martinez-Romero for three years.

Prosecutors argued Martinez-Romero was ready to face trial even though doctors admittedly couldn’t resolve his delusions. A judge agreed with the prosecutor and sent Martinez-Romero back to jail to await a trial set for next year.

His three-year stay at the overcrowded hospital did not restore him to competency and, Lucas Manfield reports, it cost about $1.5 million.

“You don’t want to make someone decide whether they’re going to plead guilty, on a murder, thinking that the trial is controlled by supernatural beings,” Manfield explains. “That is not a fair justice system.”

Today I’m talking to Manfield, whose cover story “Revolving Door” shines a light on a huge contributor to Oregon’s mental health crisis. It’s the lack of sustainable or effective care for the three groups of patients served by the state’s single locked psychiatric facility: those found guilty except for insanity (GEI); civilly committed patients who present a danger to themselves or others, or simply can’t take care of their basic needs; and mentally ill patients charged with a crime but unable to assist in their own defense, like Martinez-Romero.

Over the past decade, patients like Martinez-Romero-have outstripped all patients in the other two categories. Lucas is going to break down why that is.

Listen on Spotify.

Listen on Apple Podcasts.

Listen on Google Podcasts.

Willamette Week's journalism is funded, in part, by our readers. Your help supports local, independent journalism that informs, educates, and engages our community. Become a WW supporter.