Marin jury finds 1970s murder suspect fit for trial

A criminal case will proceed against an Idaho man accused of murdering a woman more than 50 years ago in East San Rafael.

Jurors on Wednesday found Michael Eugene Mullen, 77, to be mentally competent to stand trial for the 1973 murder of Nina Fischer, a 31-year-old Swedish national who lived with her husband and child at Point San Pedro Road.

Jurors reached the verdict after less than two hours in the two-day trial. Marin Superior Court Judge Geoffrey Howard scheduled a Jan. 8 hearing to allow Mullen to enter a plea.

On Nov. 15, 1973, the victim’s husband returned home from work and found her dead with gunshot wounds. Their 2-year-old child was found unharmed at the scene, police reported.

The homicide investigation went cold for decades until 2021 when the state Department of Justice enabled Marin County sheriff’s investigators to connect Mullen to the homicide by using DNA evidence collected at the crime scene.

The former Sonoma County resident was extradited from his Idaho home and booked into the Marin County Jail in October. He remains in no-bail custody.

Questions were raised about Mullen’s memory of Fischer during the hearing in which Howard reviewed evidence to determine if the case should proceed to trial.

A prosecution investigator testified that Mullen initially claimed he did not know the victim. Mullen later changed his recollections in a follow-up interview with investigators. The defendant claimed that he met Fischer and had consensual sex with her, sheriff’s Sgt. Kevin Guinn testified.

Mullen’s defense argued that his memory’s inconsistencies can become more frequent as he ages. Defense attorney Peter Kuykendall also argued there was no evidence that connected his client to the firearm used in the homicide.

In February, Mullen’s defense attorneys declared doubt in his mental competence to stand trial. Howard ordered a trial on the defendant’s competency after he reviewed a mental health evaluation that found him to be mentally fit to stand trial.

During a two-day trial that began Monday, jurors were asked to review evidence and determine if Mullen is capable of understanding the charges against him and his case’s court proceedings as well as being able to engage with his defense attorneys. The jury was not asked to decide if he was guilty.

Mullen was transported in a wheelchair and he was given a hearing aid during proceedings. He did not testify.

Jurors heard testimony Tuesday from two mental health professionals who evaluated Mullen in jail.

Dr. Jennifer Roman, a psychologist from Napa Psychological Services, was hired by the defense to conduct a series of cognitive tests on Mullen. She said that she met him once for a two-hour session in a noisy room where he did not have a hearing aid.

Roman testified that the defendant showed signs of “cognitive decline” an hour and a half into their meeting. He had difficulty keeping attention and became non-responsive during the session, she said.

Based on her interactions, Roman concluded that Mullen was not competent to stand trial.

In his closing argument, Kuykendall emphasized that state law requires a defendant to be able to understand court proceedings and to rationally assist defense attorneys for an entire criminal trial.

“The law does not ask if he seems OK for a few minutes,” Kuykendall told jurors. “A defendant that starts strong, but cannot sustain competence, is not competent under the law.”

Kuykendall mentioned that his client is also being medicated for terminal prostate cancer.

Prosecutor Leon Kousharian countered in his closing argument that Roman reached a conclusion about Mullen’s mental state that was solely based on one interview. He added that Roman did not determine he was incompetent for trial until the last half-hour of her meeting.

Koursharian also noted Roman had to yell at Mullen in a noisy room and did not take a break from the tests in the two-hour session.

The prosecution had Dr. Salma Khan testify about her evaluation that found Mullen competent to stand trial. A judge appointed the psychiatrist to evaluate Mullen’s mental health in jail. She met him three times this year, twice in February and once in October.

Khan interviewed him for three and a half hours, she said. She also reviewed his medical records and said that she did not have notes of him feeling tired or failing to stay focused.

In her testimony, Khan said that Mullen could benefit from being allowed to take breaks during his trial.

Khan also mentioned that Mullen addressed the DNA evidence found in the investigation, and said that he had a positive experience working with his attorneys.

“My conclusion was that he did not have a mental health diagnosis or disability,” she said.

The psychiatrist also believed that Roman’s testing of Mullen was performed too quickly. In response, Kuykendall told jurors that Khan only evaluated Mullen for 25 minutes in her final interview and she did not perform tests to verify Roman’s report.

Koursharian defended Khan’s overall series of evaluations that included reviews of mental health and medical records.

“What did she find? There was no evidence of a mental health disorder or developmental disability,” he said.

The prosecutor added that Mullen understood the charges he faced as well as the legal proceedings and the evidence in the case.

Kuykendall and the prosecutors declined to comment on the verdict Wednesday.