Opinion
Cause No. IP99-0140-CR-03-B/F
July 12, 2001
Major R Coleman, United States Attorney's Office, Indianapolis, IN., For Plaintiffs.
Robert J Hill, Attorney at Law, Indianapolis, IN., For Defendants.
ORDER SETTING COMPETENCY HEARING
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e) and 4247(d), the Court hereby sets for hearing the issue of whether Defendant John Wells is competent to stand trial, to occur on Tuesday, the 28th of August, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216.
Procedural History
On January 3, 2001, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 et seq., a hearing was held to determine if Defendant John Wells was competent to stand trial. At this hearing, Dr. Lance E. Trexler, a clinical neuropsychologist, reported his findings based on two prior evaluations of Mr. Wells. Based on this evidentiary record, which consisted primarily of Dr. Trexler's uncontroverted report and testimony, the Court determined that the Defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect, rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. Mr. Wells was committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for the purpose of further evaluation and treatment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Mr. Wells was transferred to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners where he was evaluated by Dr. David Mrad. Dr. Mrad's report of his evaluation, dated May 7, 2001, states that Mr. Wells "has some traits associated with an antisocial disorder," that he suffers from hearing loss, and that despite self-reported sleep disturbances, the correctional staff never observed sleep difficulties. Forensic Report (attached to Certificate of Competency) at 5-7. The report concluded that Mr. Wells does not suffer from a mental disease or defect rendering him incompetent to stand trial. Id. at 10. On this basis, Bill Hedrick, Warden of the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, filed a Certificate of Competency with the Clerk of Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e). On June 11, 2001, the Court ordered the parties to advise the Court on the need for further proceedings in this case.
In response, on the basis of 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e), which provides that a competency hearing, subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d), shall be held following the filing of a Certificate of Competency, the government requests a hearing "as soon as the defendant can be transported to the Southern District of Indiana, and as soon as the Court's calendar allows for such a hearing." Resp. of the United States of America to the Court's Entry for June 11, 2001 at ¶ 3. Defendant's counsel, Robert J. Hill, asserts that a hearing on Mr. Wells' competency to stand trial cannot be held until Dr. Trexler has had the opportunity to review "any and all raw data testing from the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners . . . [and] all clinical interview evaluation notes from the primary psychologist, Dr. David Mrad." Notice to the Court at ¶¶ 4-5.
Standard for Conducting a Competency Hearing
A hearing on the competency of a defendant must be conducted in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d). The requirements of this provision govern the competency hearing regardless of whether it is the defendant's first competency hearing or, as here, a hearing following government hospitalization designed to restore competency. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e) ("The court shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant."). Under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d), Mr. Wells "shall be afforded the opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing." Further, this statute establishes that, if the Defendant so desires, Mr. Wells can be examined again by Dr. Trexler, who, in turn, can be called to testify on behalf of Defendant. United States v. Rudisill, 43 F. Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1999) (describing extensive proceedings in which court permitted examination of defendant by court-appointed evaluators and re-examination of defendant by defendant's expert following issuance of certificate of competency by prison official); United States v. Duhon, 104 F. Supp.2d 663, 668-69, 671-73) (describing extensive proceedings in which court permitted re-examination of defendant by defendant's expert following issuance of certificate of competency by prison official and attack at hearing on evidentiary basis of forensic report submitted in support of certificate of competency).
Conclusion
In order to allow sufficient time for the parties to prepare for a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d), the Court hereby sets the competency hearing for Tuesday, the 28th day of August, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. We expect no delays in this schedule. Should the parties require further intervention by the Court in preparation for the hearing, they should make their requests of the Court promptly in the form of an appropriate motion with supporting briefs.