The case against Patton State Hospital Social Worker Christopher Lee Smart has concluded, and the jury is out to decide his fate.
Prosecutors accuse him of having sex with four women at the state-run hospital designed for criminal defendants with severe mental health issues.
During his closing argument, defense counsel Tarek Shawky argued that the allegations against him were based solely on the altered testimony of women with documented histories of mental issues and fraud. One of the alleged victims, Angela, informed hospital employees that Smart had sex with her because he stopped financially supporting her following her release from the hospital, Shawky argued.
“This case is about lies, manipulation, and false accusations,” Shawky said in closing argument.
In his closing argument, Prosecutor David Rabb said that the direct testimony of the women is enough to convict Smart, but that his ongoing support and visits with the women were circumstantial evidence that showed an inappropriate relationship.
“The biggest manipulator here is Mr. Smart,” Rabb said.
The complaint was amended last week, to limit the charges against Smart from nine to five: two counts of rape of a person incapable of giving consent, one count of oral copulation of a person incapable of giving consent, battery and sexual activity with a confined consenting adult.
Smart is not longer an employee of the hospital.
Background
Patton State Hospital treats criminal defendants with mental issues, some of whom have been found not competent for trial, and others who have been assigned to mental health treatment instead of imprisonment.
Smart had been a social worker at Patton since 2007, according to Rabb. In that capacity, he helped connect patients with rehabilitation programs, and provided general help to patients, including allowing them to use his office phone to contact family members. Witnesses who worked with him said he always kept his door propped open when talking with patients, and that he would always inform staff when he was spending time with a patient individually in his office.
The women claimed they were having sex with the door propped open, as often as daily during their confinement at the hospital.
After some of the alleged victims were released from the hospital, Smart stayed in contact with them. He gave them his personal cell phone number, visited them at their home and a restaurant, wired them money payments, and bought a hotel room for one of them, because she did not have an identification card. These acts violated Patton’s rules, which required immediate loss of contact with patients. They were in line with the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers, Shawky argued.
“Social workers should take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who are still in need of services,” the code says.
Smart’s ethics caused him to break Patton’s rules, and risk his job in doing so, but were not evidence of a sexual relationship, Shawky said.
“The government ran with this: Mr. Smart was breaking these rules, so he must be having sex with them too,” Shawky said.
Defense claims scheme for money
Shawky said that the case was manufactured by Amber B., one of the alleged victims, after Smart refused to financially support her. He had previously sent her two money orders, one of $25, and the second of $30.
Amber said in a journal kept in Smart’s office that she would do anything to manipulate people into giving her money when she was abusing drugs, Shawky said in closing argument.
“When I am using, all I care about is using more and more, or finding ways to move money or obsessing on ways to get people to give me money,” Amber wrote.
Shawky said that Amber intentionally started the investigation into Smart a month after he refused to support her with more money.
She did this by sending a letter to another inmate at Patton stating that she had sex with a social worker at the hospital. In the letter’s header, she wrote “Rip this up after!” She intentionally wrote that at the top to alert the people who filter the mail, Shawky argued.
Sandra
Amber was friends with another alleged victim, Sandra, Shawky said. They met each other through the criminal justice system.
Sandra claims Smart asked for a sexual favor immediately, when she asked to use the phone to call her family, Shawky said.
Sandra claimed she removed her clothes and provided oral sex. She claims she had sex with Smart every day during her 60-day term at Patton.
Shawky claimed Sandra lied because she was upset with Smart for not providing her with a copy of her father’s death certificate.
Past history and mental health
Shawky argued that the alleged victims cannot be trusted due to both their past history and mental health issues.
In 2011, Amber filed a complaint against a Patton employee, saying that he kissed her following a sweat lodge ceremony. Her roommates testified she pre-planned the complaint in order to be transferred back to her old unit, according to a stipulation read by San Bernardino Superior Assigned Judge Ronald Christianson. She filed a later complaint in the name of her roommate that alleged the employee had sexually harassed the roommate. The roommate denied the claim when the allegation was investigated.
Amber was diagnosed as having schizophrenia disorder.
Sandra was found incompetent to stand trial due to her bipolar disorder and personality disorder.
Inconsistent reports
Shawky said that the alleged victims’ testimonies should be found untrue, partly because of inconsistency in their claims. One alleged victim, Michelle, told investigators that she had sex on a couch or recliner in Smart’s office—despite no couch or recliner being in the office.
On the stand, she testified that the sex occurred over a bookshelf in Smart’s office.
Amber first said that Smart had tried to put a condom on; she later testified that they never tried to use a condom. She also said that she knew the length of Smart’s penis because he measured it with a tape measure. She retracted that on the stand.
Amber also said that she was always quiet during sex, but later said that she was moaning every time.
She further said that Smart would buy her underwear and jewelry, later changing it to boxers and a watch for her boyfriend.
Sandra also was incorrect about whether Smart was circumcised, an odd gap of knowledge for someone who claimed daily six for two months, Shawky said.
Nichol, another of the alleged victims, first told an investigator that Smart touched her, before telling the jury that Smart wanted oral sex. She claimed she lied to the investigator because she was embarrassed of other people in the room, Shawky said. There was no one else in the room when she was talking with the investigator, Shawky said.
Rabb argued that the line of time between their first deposition and their testimony accounted for the inconsistency in their stories.
Missing evidence
Amber also claimed that a worker had seen them having sex. That specific employee denied it. She claimed Smart texted her a nude photo, which she showed to her boyfriend. That boyfriend denied having seen it, Shawky said.
Sandra claimed she had sex every day, and in return was able to call her family, every day for two months. Shawky said that the call log only showed 15 calls.
Nichol claimed she reported sex with Smart to her probate officer. The officer denied the report, and there was no record of it, Shawky said.
Nichol also claimed that Smart would lock the door to his office. The door does not have a lock, Shawky said, showing a photo of the doorknob.
Questioning testimony
If they were having sex over the bookshelf, Smart would be in the middle of his office, in view of anyone who looked through his propped-open door, Shawky said. It would be impossible for Smart to get away with daily sex over two months with staff conducting rounds every 15-30 minutes, a fornication watch, a suicide watch and a busy hallway, Shawky said.
Rabb argued that Smart could have been alerted to the rounds by the staff’s keys jingling in the hallway.
Battery with restraint
Rabb argued that one of the alleged victims, Nichol, was restrained against her will. She did not feel free to leave Smart’s office because he was in a position of authority, Rabb argued.
Ability to consent
One sticking point between the attorneys was whether the inmates were capable of giving consent.
Rabb argued they were not, due to their mental history, medication and confinement in the hospital.
Shawky argued that institutionalization and treatment does not take away a person’s ability to consent. If the jury found the sex acts did occur, they shouldn’t find that it was rape of a person incapable of giving consent, he said.
Semen on bookshelf
Rabb argued that semen present on the bottom of Smart’s bookcase corroborated the former patients’ story.
Shawky argued that the semen could have been passed to the bookcase from Smart’s underwear, which he could have changed out of while working out in the office.
Case No. FSB22002150
