in february of two thousand and six he wanted to be found competent he wanted to go through the suppression hearing and directly to trial however the court found him incompetent that he wanted to appeal that ruling it was actually his trial attorney who brought the possibility of his inability to assist him to the court's attention and what's the status now his status now it's he's he's in the phase where attempts to rehabilitate him to to have the core reassess whether he is competent is going on right now so is he still in there are time limits and however what we've seen in this case is that the physicians who evaluated him originally and now are attempting to rehabilitate him continue to ask for the some kind of action taken that's correct your honor and so this is not an indefinite incarceration and medical treatment psychiatric treatment there has to be some reporting to the wants to go to the suppression hearing and trial it's got basically two chances and one of them is that rehabilitate come back to the judge and say now he's ready or it's after a reasonable period of time there needs to be a something and he's trying to get to trial and the government is in a strange position of thinking he should to defending the district court's determination so there's a balancing here of what we as an appellate court without a view of personal view that is in person view of mr de camp how much deference we should or shouldn't give to the district court's findings that's correct so what are what are you the courts to know that he is competent he always has been confident wants to get with the suppression hearing and then the trial all of his trial counsel doesn't think he was unfortunately as you read the facts former trial counsels didn't think you he was he did not think he once did not think he could assist his counsel even a former investigator was quoted as stating that he couldn't these cases give more weight to the government's witnesses number one number two the government had to prove by a preponderance in the light most favorable to the government that he was  government tried and were arguing that he was competent well there was also evidence wasn't there that he had sustained some brain damage yes your honor of course what we have is we've got look if we look at it as three experts for competency and two for incompetency there was a report of a brain injury in the early two thousand that was reported to be resolved  find that he had brain damage dementia to induce brain damage as well as evidence that he does something called going  had argued before judge and said call that the decision should come out the other way is now in the position of trying to argue the opposite and you are now in the position of are you going to this is really a isn't isn't clicking on all cylinders sufficient under under the standards and so it's a type question right down the dead center and so the trial judge says well i'm going to  if i'm going to err it's going to be on the side of taking the best shot for this person and there's clearly some problem i don't think we can go ahead with this under the circumstances now and if the experts he's going to err is going to be on the side of the defended from the standpoint of mental so he's got all this before and what what else is he going to do and you know quite frankly if i girton for standing   in which the judge then circle would have to rule on mr de camp's current competency and absent that moving forward as a matter of requirement imposed on the government in the judicial process what is the mechanism by which mr decamps current counsel could know if it's a hideous corpus or a what is there is there a procedural mechanism for mr de camp to force the issue of his current confidence in your honor i think that the answer is that eighteen us code forty two forty one d that's the subsection by which judge vansickle dispatched mr decant back to the springfield as if his hospitalization based upon that that uses obstructive behavior where the case to currently stands as the court knows judgment cicle deemed and i think or visiting judge made a very good point that the court is going to  side of caution in protecting the defendant especially mental health issues are at stake i'm here to defend judge van sickles record i think the record was a competent record if i can use that term the court heard all the right information from the experts and made a decision in prudence to send mr de camp back for further evaluation the next step would be quite simply when mr if the court sustains judgment sickles the trial court's ruling the next step would be a hearing by which mr de camp issues are rehashed that's what i'm trying to zero in the letter when is that hearing going to occur as a matter of law regard in other words there is i believe there is some limit on how long he can be held on extension requests for the coast is reasonable your honor and that's why i think it gives some leeway and we all know having practiced in this area for some time that mental health and the criminal justice system are not a great combination they don't fit well and unfortunately mr de camp's case is cute in the sense that his behavior are personally good stream we difficult for a psychologist or psychiatrist to really i think generate a great know the concerns of amounts on ultimately become involuntary commitment and at some point pretrial detention has to give way to some finding that the person has to be solely committed or whatever  held indefinitely without having been convicted of something because some doctor in some places i need more time so that's what i'm trying to get a sense of what is what's going to be the next step in this case that makes sure that sickle and or the united states or mr nino will request a hearing immediately following this court's decision in this matter and which time mr camp is going to be brought to our jurisdiction and the issues of what report be opi facility is generated will be present or not present is a person who both understands the proceeding which everyone agrees he's pretty pretty keenly tuned in to how court works the only question is how it has to be through the passage of time through therapy rather guess components is he better situated to work with an attorney to discuss trial strategy and to meaningfully assist trial counsel through the actual trial so i do think your honor that the process is backstopped the due process clause backstops it as if mr nino would have motions for relief if valuation of mr kane and the need for a hearing before the district court but isn't there another provision then for some reason forty two forty four pops into my mind but i don't have the code before me that at some point if as a result of this hearing under subsection the district court determines that he is still not competent to stand trial then the attorney general has to come mance when it gets in familiar with i've got a number of cases on my calendar that have these mental health issues in the fence going back for treatment etc forty to forty six is really a civil commitment process and there's a separate fact finding would occur if through the efforts of the b o p facility it's mr can't can't be restored to competency a decision has to be made and the by going the route of civil commitment and we the government have to show to judgment civil satisfaction that he present stay pending his commitment to a mental institution that is the theory being he could be civilly committed he could be treated medicated go through therapy be released and still face prosecution if at that time he's co so you're are you're absolutely correct that that is a code section that does allow that remedy if he is not short of compensation if there is not a trial for is not the resolution of the criminal phase that's the second i guess second phase of the inqu i just want to talk about one case that we used as precedent and that was united states versus friedman and that was from the eastern district of california and that was the reason i want to mention it that's also a case where a guy wanted to be father's death through prostate cancer here we don't have any anything like that so i guess in closing i'd ask the i asked a court to consider whether the trial court should have given the government experts more weight like many cases have and look at the government's evidence in light most favorable to the government for competency and it is thirty that the government did prove by a preponderance that mr de camp was able to assist his counsel remember the experts that said he chooses not to get along with his counsel he chooses to act out in court celestial which tells