The man who allegedly shot three Palestinian American college students in Burlington nearly three years ago has been found mentally competent for a second time, clearing the way for a trial this June in a case that has drawn national attention.
Jason Eaton, 51, has claimed he was acting on orders from American and Israeli intelligence officials in November 2023 when he stepped off the porch of his Old North End apartment and shot Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid and Tahseen Ali Ahmad.
The three victims, who were all 20 years old at the time, were visiting Awartani’s family in Burlington over the Thanksgiving holiday and did not know Eaton. The shooting left Awartani paralyzed from the waist down.
Eaton’s attorneys say his implausible rationale for the shooting stems from a serious psychiatric disorder that has rendered him unable to assist in his own defense.
After previously trying to get his attorneys taken off the case, Eaton has refused to allow them to pursue an insanity defense, despite admitting to the shooting. He has instead sought to pursue what’s known as the “public authority defense,” in which a defendant receives immunity for acting on government orders.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, say they believe Eaton is putting on an act in an attempt to avoid punishment.
In a 10-page ruling released on Monday, Judge John L. Pacht wrote that he recognized Eaton’s insistence has put his attorneys in a tough position. But the judge noted that Eaton clearly has a factual, “even sophisticated” understanding of the legal system and appears to have a grasp of what’s at stake.
Eaton’s purported belief that he was acting on behalf of the government, Pacht wrote, may very well be a strategy he has concocted after the fact — for legal purposes or as his own attempt to “psychologically rationalize behavior that may otherwise be indefensible.”
“The Court cannot conclude that this ‘belief’ is the product of a psychotic delusion as opposed to a nonpsychotic resistance to face the facts,” Pacht wrote. “Even if delusional, Mr. Eaton is still competent.”
The ruling comes a month after a daylong hearing at which forensic psychiatrists offered differing opinions on Eaton’s fitness for trial.
Dr. Keelin Garvey, who performed Eaton’s first court-ordered evaluation, testified that, while she had diagnosed him with a narcissistic personality disorder, she found no evidence that he suffered from psychotic disorders.
She said Eaton appeared to understand the court proceedings and was able to discuss with her his various potential legal strategies. He was also aware that he was prone to falling for far-fetched conspiracy theories, Garvey testified.
“I found him able to consider the possibility that his ideas might be wrong,” Garvey said, a rarity when dealing with someone who has delusions.
The defense’s expert, Dr. Fabian Saleh, came to a different conclusion, testifying that he had diagnosed Eaton with a delusional disorder that was rendering him unfit for trial.
”He doesn’t believe that he committed a crime; he lacks the rational understanding of the crime,” Saleh said at the hearing. “It’s clear he’s a psychotic individual with untreated delusions.”
Pacht questioned the thoroughness of both evaluators, but he had particularly harsh words for Saleh, whose diagnosis marked the first time in Eaton’s long medical history that he had been determined to have a psychotic disorder.
“To render such a diagnosis, the Court would think it imperative to contact collateral sources from that period, such as Mr. Eaton’s mother and cousin, with whom he had then recently resided,” Pacht wrote.
The judge further noted that Eaton, who had spent time homeless and unemployed, was clearly well versed in psychiatric disorders and had asked his providers for help determining which diagnosis would give him the best chance at being found fully disabled.
“It appears at times he has been open to manipulating the system to get what he wants,” Pacht wrote.
The judge also addressed the question of whether Eaton was capable of assisting in his own defense, a key factor in competency. He has been willing take his attorneys’ advice in certain situations, such as agreeing to undergo the psychiatric evaluations in the first place, Pacht wrote.
The lone disagreement appears to be on whether to pursue an insanity defense.
In his conversations with the evaluators, Eaton can be seen carefully weighing his defense strategies and dismissing the insanity defense — not out of some strict adherence to his delusions, Pacht wrote, but because he doesn’t believe there’s enough evidence to show he was insane at the time of the crime.
Eaton’s refusal to go along with an insanity defense may be justified, Pacht wrote, “given the lack of evidence to support it generally and the fact that it may have only been after the charges were crystallized in Mr. Eaton’s mind that he had been directed to do this by the CIA.”
The fact that Eaton has submitted his own personal motions seeking to move his case to federal court — the only venue where defendants can pursue the public authority defense — further demonstrates his understanding of the proceedings against him, Pacht wrote.
The first day of Eaton’s trial is currently scheduled for June 2.