Ullmann Steps In

In a bombshell development in the Dr. Lishan Wang murder case, the head of New Haven’s public defender’s office, Thomas J. Ullman, asked a judge to revoke Wang’s status to represent himself at trial — and to substitute Ullmann as his attorney.

Dr. Wang appealed to the judge to turn down the request.

At the outset of a hearing Wednesday morning at the Church Street courthouse, Superior Court Judge Thomas V. O’Keefe, Jr. told Dr. Wang that Ullmann (pictured) had filed a motion ​“to remove you as your own attorney and to substitute the public defender’s office.” The judge also said he will rule on whether Ullman has standing to make the motion in the first place. 

“Obviously this is a very serious issue. I will not decide it today,” the judge said.

By the end of the 90-minute court session, the judge set aside Feb. 24, 25 and 26 to hear the Ullmann motion.

Dr. Wang, , who recently turned 49, is accused of gunning down Dr. Vanjinder Toor, then a post-doctoral fellow at the Yale School of Medicine, outside Dr. Toor’s condo in Branford on April 26, 2010. He is charged with killing Dr. Toor, his former supervisor at Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center in New York. The two men had a workplace dispute that eventually led to Dr. Wang’s firing in 2008. Dr. Wang has been defending himself in drawn-out pre-trial proceedings for roughly four years.

Dr. Wang, who received the motion shortly before court began, quickly reacted, telling the judge: ​“I don’t want Attorney Ullman involved in my case.” He was not happy as he stood at the defense table. ​“Your honor,” he said, ​“I am concerned. Attorney Ullmann, he does not consider me innocent.” 

Before the hearing ended, the judge on his own ordered a new mental competency examination for Dr. Wang.

“This will assist in making the decision,” the judge said, adding it is up to him to monitor a defendant’s competency. The judge asked Dr. Wang to cooperate with the examination. Dr. Wang last underwent a mental competency examination in 2010; after hearing from psychiatrists, Superior Court Judge Roland D. Fasano, then the judge in the case, ruled Dr. Wang was competent to stand trial. Two extremely divergent psychiatric views were articulated at a hearing four years ago. Click here to read the story.

In court Wednesday, Ullmann (standing in rear of room) drew the distinction between a defendant’s competency to stand trial and a defendant’s competency to defend himself at trial and his mental competency to conduct that trial himself.

After years of observation, and with one of his attorneys still assigned to the case, Ullmann had now concluded that to continue to let Dr. Wang represent himself would violate both state and federal constitutional law. Ullmann also asked Judge O’Keefe to permit psychiatric inquiry into whether Dr. Wang is able to represent himself at trial. The judge did not seem inclined to do that.

State Senior Attorney Eugene Calistro, Jr., took no position on the events unfolding in court today, he said afterwards. 

New Competency Exam Ordered

“You can be competent to stand trial but not competent to represent yourself,” Ullmann said. The judge observed that he had overseen trials for more than 40 years. ​“On that issue I might have better insights than they do,” the judge noted. The judge also said he would also examine Dr. Wang’s ability ​“to organize a defense” in ruling on the Ullmann motion.

Dr. Wang has represented himself since 2011 after essentially firing his public defender attorneys. However, by law he is entitled to a stand-by attorney and until today Jeffrey LaPierre of the public defender’s office has assumed that role. Now Ullmann will take over that position until a final decision is made on his motion.( La Pierre will soon go on military leave.) One other course of action might include the appointment of an outside special public defender. 

TV Coverage Permitted

Dr. Wang was also concerned that the judge had allowed WTNH to televise Wednesday’s hearing. ​“With the camera and media, there could have some effect on my case, he said.
 
After consulting with Lapierre, Dr. Wang said he was concerned about publicity affecting his upcoming trial, which had been expected to begin in two months. (That date is less likely now that a competency motion has been filed). Dr. Wang said he prefers no camera coverage be allowed. This was the first time since Dr. Wang’s arraignment nearly five years ago that a television reporter has attended court proceedings.

“We don’t try cases in secret,” the judge responded. He said publicity ​“is not a reason to deny press coverage.”

Dr. Wang tried another approach. ​“What if coverage brings out the defense’s strategy,” he said, ​“and then the media mislead…”

“We have open courts and freedom of the press,” Judge O’Keefe responded. ​“The trial is not going to be conducted in secret.” Then the judge
turned to the television reporter and asked: ​“How long will it take for you to set up?” It took only several minutes.

Updates On Experts, Yale Files

The judge heard several updates on expert witnesses. Virtually no progress has been made on hiring an investigator and in hiring a ballistics expert. Dr. Wang appeared to placing impediments on these witnesses that might well give rise to competency questions in serving as his own attorney. The judge has repeatedly said that an investigator is essential to the trial proceeding. The judge set a separate date — February 18 — for expert witness updates. 

The judge also ruled that Dr. Wang is not entitled to examine the Yale personnel records of Dr. Toor. A Yale University attorney had asked the
judge to quash Dr. Wang’s subpoena for Dr. Toor’s records at last month’s court session.

The judge told Dr. Wang that he had read his motions and ​“nothing in your motion convinced me you are entitled” to Dr. Toor’s records.
 
But he added once Dr. Wang decides on his defense— and he has yet to do so because of expert witness issues — he can renew his motion for Dr. Toor’s personnel records.

“For now, Yale’s action is granted. … You didn’t show me anything you would expect to get from those records for your case. I read every single word. The issue is ruled on. ”
###