He’s accused of trying to kill his family by driving their Tesla off a cliff. If convicted on attempted murder charges, he could have faced life in prison. Instead, he’ll skip the trial altogether and get two years of mental health treatment at home.
Dr. Dharmesh Patel is the first high-profile defendant charged with *attempted-murder* to get Mental Health Diversion under California’s recently revised law. His case is fueling a legal debate and raising questions at the capitol.
The unthinkable captured the country’s attention
A Tesla plunged more than 250ft off a cliff at Devil’s Slide on a winding stretch of Highway 1 in Northern California. The story initially captured the country’s attention because the family of four inside survived. First responders said it was “nothing short of a miracle.”
Extraordinary footage captured by rescuers showed what appeared to be Patel sticking his head out from the sheared-off top of the family Tesla as rescuers worked to free his wife and trapped children, a four-year-old boy and nine-year-old girl.
They used ropes to pull the two children up the cliff, and helicopters hoisted the parents out.
Then, the news broke that police were charging Dr. Patel with attempted murder and child abuse.
Prosecutors say he later admitted to intentionally trying to kill his family the day he drove his wife and two young children off the cliff. Therapists testified that Dr. Dharmesh Patel was having paranoid delusions about Jeffrey Epstein, the fentanyl crisis, and he feared that his kids could be sex trafficked. They said he told them he wanted to protect his family from a worse fate.
Treatment instead of trial
If any one of them had died that day, Dr. Patel would be standing trial for murder.
Because they survived against all odds, he’s facing attempted murder charges instead – and that makes him eligible for Mental Health Diversion under California law.
Instead of facing seven years to life in prison, the Pasadena doctor will get two years of mental health treatment while living at home with his parents in the Bay Area suburb of Belmont.
If he completes a two-year program, Dr. Patel’s record will be wiped clean. Legally, it will be as if the crash never happened.
Should attempted murder defendants be eligible for diversion?
“Doctor Patel did everything he could to carry out a murder,” argued San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “It was just that they survived the crash of the car.”
Wagstaffe said he supports diversion in many cases but not for people charged with attempted murder. He opposed Mental Health Diversion for Dr. Patel.
“I’m more than happy to take that gamble when you’re dealing with low-level type of offenses,” Wagstaffe said. “We don’t think for a crime like attempted murder, that diversion out of the system, meaning no accountability, no punishment should exist.”
A newly revised law makes more Californians eligible for diversion. Defendants no longer have to prove a diagnosed mental illness was a “significant factor” causing them to commit the crime.
Judges must now presume nearly any one of these hundreds of listed mental disorders was responsible for nearly any crime.
The list of eligible “mental disorders” ranges from Patel’s diagnosis – major depressive disorder – to ADHD, erectile disorder, anorexia, substance use disorder, and intoxication.
“Diversion programs have been proven over and over again to have much better outcomes than traditional prosecutions when it comes to (preventing) new crimes,” said Mona Sahaf, a prosecution reform advocate.
Sahaf is the director of the Reshaping Prosecution Initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice, which often advocates for criminal justice reform.
She points to national studies that show prosecutor-led diversion greatly reduced recidivism and the rate of rearrests after completing diversion.
However, our recent CBS News California investigation found a lack of reliable data examining the success rates of California’s diversion programs under the recently revised laws. The state removed its success-rate data from the public portal following that report.
“Really, the headline here is that a person’s getting the treatment they need to make sure that they can be a safe, thriving member of their community. And that this is aligning with the wishes of the survivors of this crime,” Sahaf said.
She points to emotional testimony from Dr. Patel’s wife asking for diversion instead of trial.
“I really miss my best friend … my partner in life,” Mrs. Patel said.
Mrs. Patel described how much her kids miss their father and she noted that her husband never had an episode like that before. She argued, “(His) mental health treatment … will not only restore him back to himself but … will restore the health and well-being of (their) entire family.”
By all accounts, Dr. Patel was a loving father and upstanding doctor before his sudden mental illness prompted him to drive his family off a cliff.
Doctors say, if properly medicated, he could go back to that life.
“A diversion program might be the absolute best antidote to making sure that this person never commits a crime again,” Sahaf said.
The two-year Mental Health Diversion program
“I would also disagree that you’re not being held accountable in diversion,” Sahaf said. “You have to go through a very rigorous program with lots of requirements, many, many more requirements indeed than being charged and put into jail,”
In Patel’s case, he must wear an ankle monitor and stay confined to his parent’s house except for weekly visits to court, doctors, and therapists. He’ll be tested to ensure he’s not using recreational drugs or alcohol and that he is taking his prescribed medication.
He turned over his driver’s license and passport and, for now, he can’t see his wife and kids, practice medicine, or own a gun.
“What do you say to the argument that he’s exactly the type of person that should get mental health diversion?” we asked Wagstaffe.
“Nobody saw it coming. So how are we going to know in the future whether it’s coming?” he said. “How do we know he’s going to stay on medication after two years?”
Wagstaffe also worries that Patel was misdiagnosed.
He’s being treated for major depression disorder, but doctors for the prosecution argued he has Schizoaffective disorder – which requires a different treatment that they say Patel opposed.
“You have to have the right medication,” Wagstaffe said. “That’s why we think that the court should only take the chance, gamble, in cases where you’re a minimal danger to the public.”
What happens after two years?
Wagstaffe notes mental health diversion programs run a maximum of two years.
“If mental health diversion were for 20 years, 30 years, that would be a different consideration. The maximum – the court has no discretion – is two years. That’s nowhere near enough to determine whether somebody has really changed,” Wagstaffe added.
In Patel’s case, the medical board could attempt to revoke his license. But, legally, in two years, Patel can return to practicing medicine, driving, and even owning a gun.
“He will be the same as you, me, and every other law-abiding citizen out there in our community,” Wagstaffe said. “At the end of two years, Mr. Patel can go out, on day one, and purchase a gun.”
Wagstaffe’s office sponsored a bill, which is now state law, that prohibits gun possession during the two-year mental health diversion period.
“Originally it was a lifetime ban that we proposed,” Wagstaffe said. “They would not even let it get to a vote in the committee unless we agreed to water it down … We decided to take that because that’s better than nothing.”
Wagstaffe points to a dichotomy under California law.
“If somebody has a mental illness and commits an attempted murder, at the end of the two years, we’re going to let them buy a gun,” Wagstaffe said.
That’s because at the end of diversion, the charges are dropped. There’s no felony and no record of a crime.
“But if it’s somebody who has no mental health issues – [and] they stole $1,500 worth of goods, a felony – they are prohibited from possessing the gun the rest of their life. There’s no logic.”
Questions at the Capitol
The DA is among many who argue Mental Health Diversion should not be allowed in cases of attempted murder.
At the state capitol earlier this year, a bipartisan bill with widespread support within the legislature would have added attempted murder to the short list of charges – murder and sex crimes – that are not eligible for diversion.
Defense attorneys and reform advocates opposed the bill, arguing that it is bad policy to categorically exclude one type of offense. “We want the best option to be available in every single case, no matter what the charges,” explained Shahf.
Still, the bill had 17 bipartisan co-authors and unanimously passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which is known for killing tough-on-crime legislation.
“It is extraordinarily hard to get, pro-criminal justice bills out of the public safety. And this one flew through,” Wagstaffe said.
But the rest of the Assembly never got the chance to vote because the Appropriations Committee killed the bill by holding it the so-called “suspense file.”
“I find that as anti-democratic, and I don’t think the public if they knew it, would find that acceptable,” Wagstaffe said.
The suspense file is where even popular bills can go to die without a public vote.
In this case, the committee analysis suggested the bill was too expensive – highlighting how much it would cost the state annually ($133k) to send someone to prison for attempted murder instead of diversion.
Except, their analysis fails to mention how much it currently costs ($123k+) to put the same person through diversion for a year.
Our CBS News analysis of state data found that last year alone, California spent an estimated $67 million on people who failed to complete Mental Health Diversion programs and had charges reinstated anyway.
In the first quarter of 2024 year, state data indicated the failure rate jumped to more than 50%.
Neither the Appropriations Committee Chair, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, nor her committee staff responded to repeated requests for comment.
“Poster child” for both sides of the diversion debate
Patel is the first high-profile attempted murder defendant to get Mental Health Diversion since the bill died.
“For us, he’s the poster child. We will use him in our efforts to try and bring that bill back,” Wagstaffe said.
But Patel is also the so-called “poster child” for the other side.
“Unfortunately, so many people believe that punishment is the way to make sure people don’t commit any crimes. But that’s not what the evidence shows,” Sahaf said.
Dr. Patel’s defense attorney declined an interview, but they hope Patel will be the model for how mental health diversion is supposed to work — even for those charged with attempted murder.
CBS News California Investigates
More
More
