### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10433
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. L ES T ER J ON R US T ON D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore D AV IS, ST E W A R T , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . C A R L E
. ST E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg e: L est er Jon R u st on w as charged w i t h t h reat en i n g t o assault an d m u rder
a fe deralm ag i s t r at e j udg e w i t h i nt e ntt o i nt i m i da t e a nd r e t ali at e a ga i ns tt he j u dg e i n vi ol ati on of 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 115 an d w as f ou n d n otgu i l t y by reason of i n san i t y. Th e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed R u st on t o t h e cust odyof t h e A t t o rn ey G e ne r alund e r1 8 U
. S. C. § 4 24 3( a)
. P ri or to a § 4 24 3(c ) he ar i ng t o de t e r m i ne w het herR ust on c oul d es t abl i sh thathi s r el eas e w oul d n otc r eat e as ubst ant i al ri sk of bodily i nj u ry t o an ot h er due to a p resent m en t aldi sease oril l n ess, R u s ton ’ s cou n sel fil ed a req u est for th e cou rt to h old a h ea ri n g t o dete rm i n e if R u s to n w a s c o m p e te n t to w a iv e h is rig h t t o co u n s e l. A fte rh o ld in gah e a r in g , a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10433

2 m agis t rat e j u dg e f

ou n d R u st on com petent t o w aive coun sel
. Th e di st ri ctcourt t he n c o nduc t e d at w o - da y § 4 24 3(c ) he ar i ng w he r e Rus t o n pr o c e e de d pro se . The di st r i c tc our tf

ound t hatR ust on fai l ed t o pro ve t hat he di d not pos e a s ubst ant i al
r i s k o f b o dil y i nj ur y t o o t he r s , ando r de r e d thathe r e m ai n i n t he c us t o dyo f t he A t t orney G en eralun t i lhe could be safel y rel ease d to th e com m u n i t y. R u st on ap pea l s the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s fai l u re t o su asp o n tehol d a com petency h eari n g af t er o b s e rv in gR u s t o n ’s b e h a v io ra tth e § 4 2 4 3 ( c ) h e a r in ga n dth e c o u r t ’s determ i n ati on t h at R u st on w as com petent t o w aive h i s r i gh t t o c o u n sel. For
r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e db e l o w, we R EV ER S E a n dR EMAND.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n Ma y2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , R u s t o n c a l l e dt h e c h a mb e r s o f t h e H o n o r a b l e I r ma R am i rez, U n i t ed S t ates M agis t rat e Ju dg e f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas. R u s t o n le ftath r e a t e n in ga n dp r o fa n it y -r id d e nm e s s a g e o n J u d g e R a m ir e z ’s
a n sw erin g m a ch i n e. R u ston w a s ar reste dthe f oll ow i n g d a y a n dch a rg edw i th t hre at eni ng a f

ede r alof

f i c i ali n vi ol at i on o f

18 U
. S. C
. § 115. Ru st on t hen bega n f i l i n g errat i c pro se m o tio n s inth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. O n A u gu st 20 , 2 0 0 4 , the F ed era lP u b l i c D efen d ers o ff i ce w a s ap p oin tedto represent R u st on . Su bsequ en t l y, t h e di s t ric tc o urtgr ant e d a n uno ppo s e d M ot i on for P sy ch i a tri c an dP sy ch ological C on su l tati on . R u ston , h ow ev er, con ti n u edto
en gag e i n err ati c pro sef i l i ngs t hatc o nt ai ne d a l l egati o ns s i m i l art o t he f o l l o w i n g : “ [ n ] o t h i n ga l l e g e di n [t h e ] i n d i c t me n th a s a n y t h i n gt o d o w i t h I r ma R a m i rez ’ s ca p a ci ty a s a F ed era l O ff i ci a l
. Ith a s to do w i th a m u rd er for h i re p l ot,
w h i ch the N orth ern D i stri ct C ou rt i s attem p ti n g to co ve r u p . ” O n M a y4 , 2 0 0 5 , th e co u r t h e ldaco m p e te n c yh e a r in gw h e r e afo r e n s ic psych ol ogi stw i t h t h e U
. S
. B u reau of P ri sons t est i f i ed th at R u st on suf

fered f rom a m ent aldi sorder , s pec i f i c al l y de l usi onaldi so r derpr os ec ut or i alt ype, t hat i m pa i r e d hi s a bil i t y t o as s i s t c o uns e l
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und Rust o n s uf

fe r i ng f rom a m en t aldi sease o r d e fect rend eri n g h i m m en t al l y i n com petent t o assi stN o. 07- 10433

3 properl y i n hi s defen se. R u st on w a s re m a n d e d to t h e cust odyof t h e A t t orney G en eralf

orpurpo se s of

at t em pt i ng t o r es t or e Ru st on t o c om pet enc y. D es pi te b e in gre p r e s e n te db yco u r t-a p p o in t e d c o u n s e l, R u s to n co n tin u e dto file
n o n s e n s ic a l pro sem o tio n s w ith th e co u r t. O n Se pt e m be r1 3, 2 00 6, Rus t o n’ s a t t o r ne y s ubm i t t e d am o t i o n enti t l ed

“M e mo r a n d u m o f

C o mp e t e n c ya n dOp p o s i t i o n t o I n v o l u n t a r yMe d i c a t i o n . ” O n Se pt e m be r1 9, 2 00 6, t he di s t r i c tc o ur the l d acom pet e nc y he ar i ng andf o und Rust o n c o m pe t e ntt o st andt r i al
. Dr. J am e s W o l fs o n t e s t i f i e d a tt he he ar i ng and st at ed t hat R ust on had “ pre se nt c apac i t y t o pro c ee d t o adj udi c at i on , ” bu t t h at “d e lu s io n a l m a te r ia l co n tin u e [d ] to b e p r e s e n t in R u s to n ’ s th in k in ga n d co u ld i m pa i r hi s f

u t u re c ap aci t y f

or entirely i n dep en den tst rat egi c l egal de cision
m a k in g .” D r . W o lfs o n u r g e dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o “p r o s e c u t e [ t h e ] c a s e q u ic k ly becau se [h e] coul d give n o assuran ce th at [R u st on ’ s] levelof rem i ssi on or at l east
r a t io n a l s t r a t e g iz in gm ig h tc o n t in u e .” O n S e p t e m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , R u s t o n ’s at t o r ne y pr o vi de d aN o t i c e o f I ns anit y D e fe ns e . On O c t o be r2 , 2 00 6, aJ o i nt S t i pu l ati on of

F actw as subm i t t ed w h ere al l pa rt i es agreed t h at R u st on w as not guil t y byr e as on of i ns anit y. On O c t o be r1 2, 2 00 6, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und Rust o n no tg ui l t y byr e as o n o f i ns anit y and ord ere d Rus t o n c o m m i t t e d t o t he
c us t o dyo f

t he At t o r ne y G e ne r al
. H o w e ve r , a tt he he ari ng hi s a t t o r ne y s t at e d: M r . R u s to n . . . s e e m s to m a n ytim e s b e co m p e te n t a n dra tio n a lly i n t eractw i t h m e, bu tt h ere are ot h er tim e s w h ere he seem s t o act i r r at i o nall y. So Ir e ali z e w e a r e o n - I ’ m t r yi ng t o fi n d t h e r i ght w ords. Sortof

t h e kn i fe’ s edge of

com petency I guess on a da y -tod a yb a s i s w h i c h ma k e s t h i n g s v e r yd i f f i c u l t
. S o a tt h i s p o i n ti n t i me t hi s m o r ni ng I fe e lhe i s i nt e r ac t i ng w i t h m e o n ar at i o nalb as i s a nd m ak i ng r at i o nalde c i s i o ns , a nd Im us ts ayt hathe i s r at i o nal
. But si n ce th e [c] ou rt f

ou n d hi m com petent and t oda y[ , ] It h i n k there are m om ent s t hath e h a s bec om e s o ir r at i onalt hathe c annotbe con sider edcom p eten t.N o. 07- 10433

4 O n Fe bruary 13, 200 7, R u st on ’ s at t orney fil ed a m ot i on requesti n g t hatthe C ou rthol d a h eari n g t o deter m i n e if R u st on w aivedh i s ri gh tt o coun sel , becau se Rust o n w i s he d t o pr o c e e d pro sei n a s c hedul ed § 4243(c ) hear i ng. O n M ar c h 7, 2007, a m agi st r at e j udge hel d a hear i ng t o de t er m i ne w het herR u ston w as c om pet entt o w aive c ounse l
. The m agi st r at e j udge c onc l uded t hat R ust on had

“ t he abil i t y t o und e r s t andt he na t ur e a nd o bj e c to f t he pr o c e e di ngs t o de t e r m i ne i f he i s a da n ger t o soci et y an d u n derst [ ood] t h e si gn i f i can ce and consequ en ces o f hi s de c i s i o n t o w aivec o uns e l
. ” Rus t o n, ho w e ve r , m ad e t he f o l l o w i ng t e l l i ng st at em entatt he hear i ng: I’ve been com petent s i n ce th e dayIw as a rres t ed. Iha ve a st ack of m edi c alr ec or ds t hathave bee n suppr es se d t hi s ent i r e c as e that s ho w no m e nt alil l ne s s a nd c o m pl e t e co m pe t e nc e . Eve r y do c um e nt f i l ed byt h e governm en ti n t h i s c ase ha s been a fr a u d . I ’ v e been deni ed a suppr es si on hear i ng, I ’ve bee n deni ed al lm y c ons t i t ut i onal r ig h ts fo ra lm o s t t h r e e y e a r s a n dI’m tir e do f it. T h e cour tg r ant e d Rus t o n’ s m o t i o n t o pr o c e e d pro se , s t at i ng t hatt he c o u rt
w o u ldn o tfo r c e co u n s e l o n R u s to n . R u s to n , pro se , t hen f i l ed addit i onal
n on sen sical m oti on s w i th the cou rt. O n M a rc h 2 7 -2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , R u sto n re p re se n te dh im se lf pro sei n a n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 424 3(c ) h e a r i n g . A § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r i n gi s h e l dt o d e t e r m i n e wh e t h e rt he i ndivi duali s a dan gertoh i m se l f or ot her s. R ust on had t he bur den of pr ovi ng by cl ear an d c on vi n ci n g evi den ce t h at h i s rel ease w ou l d not pose a sub st an t i alri sk
o f b o d i l yi nj u r yto o t h e r s o rd a m a g e to p r o p e r t y . A tth e h e a r in g , R u s t o n ’s de m e ano rde m o ns t r at e d al ac k o f und e r s t and i ng r e gard i n g t he na t ur e o f t he p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im
. D r . W o lf s o n’ s Te s t i m o ny D r. W ol fson tes t i f

i ed th at R u st on w as u n w i l l i n g t o accept a diagnosi s of
m ent alil l nes s and re f use d tr eat m ent
. D r . W olfso n al sote st i f i ed t o re vi ew i ng a r epo r t of a f

or ens i cev al uat i on c om pl et ed byD r . M aure en B urr i s, and s t at ed thatN o. 07- 10433

5 he di sa gr ee d w i t h D r. B urr i s’ s di agnos i s t hatR ust on s uf fer ed f r om del usi onal di sorder andi n st eaddi agn ose d R u st on w i t h paran oi d schi zoph reni a. D r. W ol fson als o t est i f

i ed that itw as possibl e t h at R u st on w as bi pol ar or suff ered f rom a persona l i t y di sorder. D r. W ol fson expl ai n ed th at r egard l ess of w h et h er R u s to n s u ffe r e dfr o m p a r a n o id s c h iz o p h r e n ia o r d e lu s io n a l d is o r d e r , b o th co u ld b e tr e a te dw ith m e d ic a tio n , w h ic h R u s to n w a s cu r r e n tlyre fu s in g . T h e G o vernm en tt h en askedD r. W ol fson to t est i f y regardi n g h i s r evi ew o f l e t t e r s a nd f

i l i ngs Rus t o n m ad e o ve rt he fe w w e e ks a nd m o nt hs pr e c e di ng t he § 4 243(c ) hear i ng. D r . W olfso n t es t i f i ed that t he r ec entf

i l i ngs w er e “ get t i ng a l i t t l e s t r ang e r t han w hat Rust o n had be e n f il i ng be f

o r e ” and t hat t h ey w ere c ons i st entw i t h a di agnos i s of R ust on s uf

fer i ng f r om par anoi d s c hi zo phre ni a. F o re x a m p l e , t h e m a te r ia l in c lu d e dafilin gw h e r e R u s to n a lle g e dth a t K a tie Cour i ct am pe r e d wi t h Dr. W o l fs o n. Dr. W o l fs o n s t at e d thatw hi l e pr e vi ous f i l i ngs w e r e i r r at i o nal , o ne c o ul d f o l l o w Rust o n’ s r e as o ni ng. D r . W o l fs o n f o und t he m or e r ec entf

i l i ngs t o a ppear“t o b e a n expans i on o f [R ust on’ s] del usi onal
s ys t e m . ” Fi nall y, D r . W o l fs o n t e s t i f i e d thathe b e l i e ve d thatw i t ho utt r e at m e nt R u st on posed a ri sk o f d a n g ers t o ot h ers, an d that D r. W ol fson w as l ess c onc er ned abo utt he r i sk t o o t her s’pr ope r t y. D u r in gth e co u r s e o f D r . W o lfs o n ’ s te s tim o n y , R u s to n o bje c te dre p e a te d ly to p rop erly g ive n testi m on y o n the gro u n d s th a t ( 1 ) D r. W olfson w a s n ot a qu al i f i ed exp ertun der F ederalR u l e of C ivil P rocedure ( “ R u l e” ) 702 ( at l east ei ghtobj ec t i ons ) , ( 2) a pr evi ous l y f i l ed m ot i on t o s uppres s shou l d h ave be gr ant ed ( atl eas ts i x o bj ec t i ons ) , ( 3) D i st r i c tC our tJudge Fi sh s houl d be di s qua l i f

i e d ( atleasts i x o bj e c t i o ns ) , ( 4) he w as de ni e d hi s r i ght s t o c o nf r o nt
w i t n esses , ( 5) t h e U n i t ed S t ates A t t orney su pp ress ed evi d e n ce from expert
w i t ne s s e s w ho w o ul d t e s t i f y t hatR us t o n di d no ts uf fe rf r o m m e nt alil l ne s s , a nd (6 ) h e h a dth e rig h t t o s p e a kh is m in du n d e rth e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t.N o. 07- 10433

6 R u s t o n t h e n b e g a n h is c r o s s -e x a m in a t io n o f D r . W o lfs o n . R u s t o n ’s qu est i on i n g di d n otrel ate t o w h et h er h e w ou l d p ose a substanti alri sk of ha rm to o th e r s o rp r o p e r ty
. In s te a d , R u s to n a s k e dD r . W o lfs o n if:

• Dr
. W o l fs o n ’ s t e s t i m o n ywa s t a m p e r e dwi t h b yt h e W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. C a p ita l P o lic e ;

• c o m p l a i n t s R u s t o n f i l e dw i t h t h e A t t o r n e yG e n e r a li n Wa s h i n g t o n , D. C.
w e r e s e ntt o D r . W o l fs o n;

• D r. W ol fson fai l ed to respond i n w ritin gto “cop- ou t s” R u st on sent t o D r. W o l fs o n;

• D r . W o l fs o n w as awar e o f an all e ge d c as e be t w e e n Rust o n and P l ano In d ep en d en t Sc h oo lD i stri ct;

• D r. W i l son w a s fa m i l i a r w i th an i n d ivid u a l , u n d erg oin g ca re a t th e facili ty D r. W olfson w ork ed , w h o m u rd ere dan oth er p a ti en t;

• D r . W olfso n w as aw ar e if t he dut i es of

a U ni t ed St at es M agi st r at e J udge i n cl u de consp i racy t o com m i tm u rder;

• D r . W o l fs o n was a w ar e t hatRus t o n a c c us e d J udg e Ram i r e z o f b e i ng i nvo lve d i n a n a t t e m ptt o m ur de rhi m , a nd a c c us e d he ro f t hati n t he
m ess a ge h e lef

t;

• D r. W ol fson revi ew ed h an dw rit te n n ot es s en tt o t h e F ederalB u reau of Investi gati on (“ F B I” ) as part of an i n vest i gation a b o u tan att em pted
m u rder pl otagainstR u st on , as w el la s h an dw rit t en notes of a U n i t ed S t ates M arsha lan d m em ber of t h e U n i t ed S t ates S ecretServi ce;

• D r. W olfson h a dcon tact w i th a S ecre t Se rv i ce a ge n t;

• D r . W o lfs o nre v ie w e dre c o r d s co n n e c te dto a n in d iv id u a l a lle g e d ly di s c har ge d f

r o m t he Cent r al I nt e l l i ge nc e Age nc y ( “ CI A” ) for em b ez zlem en t, ex p l a i n i n g th a t: Jef f r ey D on E l m or e w as di sc harge d f r om th e C ent r al In tel l i ge n ce A ge n cy for em b ez zlem en t, a n d I h a ve th e righ t t o U n i tedS tates 4 2 4 7 (d), an dI ha ve be en de n i edtha t ri gh t. IN o. 07- 10433

7 h a v e t h e righ t t o con fron t Ja m es E l l i s, w h o con sp i red to ar r e s tm e . Ib e l i e veund e rt he Sixth Am e ndm e ntIha vet he r ig h tto c o n fr o n th i m , a n dIh a v e s u b p o e n a e dh im , a n dh e ’s n oti n t h e court room as far as Ican see;

• D r. W olfso n w as t es t i f yi ng t hatt he G ove r nm ents uppres se d m edi c al
r e c o r ds f

r o m D r . W o l fs o n ( D r . W o l fs o n e xp l ai ne d thathe w as no ts t at i ng th a t);

• D r. W ol fson revi ew ed a FB I report t h at ref erenced a bl ack, f

orm er m ari n e, hi tm an w ho w as hir e d t o m ur de rRus t on , a nd a ny 91 1 r e c o r ds f r o m t he C arrol l t on P ol i ce D epa rt m en ton or ab ou tM ay 18, 2 004 , res pon di n g t o a s t alki ng andm ur de rt hr e atb y t he a l l e ge d hitm an; a nd

• D r. W ol fson “i n vest i gated M r. R u st on ’ s fam i l y l i n eage or l ooked at an y of h i s fam i ly ch art s t o deter m i n e w h et h er he i s descended f rom ” Scott i sh
r o y a lty
. N on e of t h ese questi on s i n volved t h e potenti al ri sk of da n ger R u st on posed t o i ndivi dual s orpr ope r t y i f rel eas ed. R ust on di d ask at l eas tt w o q ues t i ons t hat
w ere r el evan t
. Fir st , R u st on askedD r. W ol fson i f he w as aw are of

an i m proper 20 01 ho s pit ali z at i o n t hatr e s ul t e d i n Rus t o n’ s r e l e as e a f t e rado c t o ri n Pl ano di agn osed R u ston w i t h no m en t alil l n ess an d w i t h ou tprovi di n g t reat m en tor m e di c at i o n. Se c o nd, Rus t o n q ue s t i o ne d Dr
. W o l fs o n a bo uthi s t e s t i m o ny att he
e a rlie rco m p e te n c yh e a r i n g , a n da s k e dh o w R u s t o n c o u l dh a v eb e e nm ir a c u lo u s ly rest ored t o com petence w i t h ou tm edi cat i on or t reat m en t
. D r. W ol fson st ated t h at th ose s pon ta n e o u s r em i ssi on s are rare, bu tt h ey occur, based upo n m y fair l y l e ngthy i nt e rvi e w a tSe ag o vil l e t he da y be f o r e [t he com petency h eari n g you ] app eared m ore r ati on al
. A n d you w ere not f r e e o f pe r s e c ut o r i alde l us i o ns , b utyo u w e r e a bl e t o s t r at e gi z e a nd r at i o nali z e a bo uty o ur cas e . . . a nd y o u a ppe ar e d t o b e a bl e t o do t hat
. . . . [A] s I e xp l ai ne d at l e ngth dur i ng t hatpr i o rhe ar i ng, a nd I v o ic e daco n c e r n th a t s in c e I h a d n ’ t d o n e a n y th in gto m a k e it hap pe n –t hati tha dn’ tha ppe ne d thr o ugh tr e at m e ntb ut spon t an eou sly – t h e C ou rtw ou l d be ad vi sed t o prosecute you r c aseN o. 07- 10433

8 qu i ckl y becau se Icoul d give t h em no assu ran ce th a t le velof rem i ssi on or at l east of rat i on alst rat egi zi n g m i gh tconti n u e. D u ri n g t h e cou rs e o f t h e cr oss- exam i n ati on , D r. W ol fson als o t est i f i ed regardi n g l et t ers R u st on sent t o K ati e C o u ric, bu tst ated t h at he w as m ore c on c er ned w i t h l et t er s w r i t t en “und era Sec r etServi c e l et t er head o rs om e l aw en f orcem en tagen cy, a fi ct i t i ou s l et t erhea d. ” I n res pon se, R u st on askedw h et h er D r. W ol fson h adever b e e n i n contactw i t h K ati e C ou ri c orN B C T el evi si on N et w orks. D r. W ol fson an sw ered i n t h e n egative. R u st on al so asked w h et h er R u st on ever c l ai m ed to kn ow K ati e C ou ri c. D r. W ol fson tes t i f i ed that R u st on n e v e rto ldD r . W o lfs o n th a t R u s to n k n e w h e r , a n dth a t R u s to n in d ic a te dth a t h is
w r i t i ngs t o K at i e Cour i cw e r e “ c o m e dy
. ” Rus t o n t h en a s ke d Dr
. W o l fs o n if he
w as aw ar e thatR ust on w as a c om edy w r i t erand appear ed o n l oc als t at i ons as a com edycharacteran d p rof essi on alact or, specif i cal ly on C B S t el evi si on . D r. W o l fs on te s t i f

i e d thathe ha d he ar d Rus t o n s t at e t hi s b e f o r e , b utha d no i nde pe nde ntv e r i f

i c at i o n o f Rust o n’ s c l ai m s . Rust o n c o nc l ude d hi s q ue s t i o ni ng o f D r . W o l fs o n. T est i m ony of

D r. L i sa C layton R u st on t h en call ed D r. C l ayton t o test i f y. D r. C l ayton evaluated R u st on f o rc o m pe t e nc y t o s t andt r i ala nd m e tw i t h Rust on o n Augus t1 4, 2 00 4, a nd S eptem ber 23, 200 4, as r equ i red i n a court order i ssued by Jud ge M ary M i l l er. R u st on ’ s exam i n ati on of D r. C l ayton w as al so u n rel ated t o t h e i ssue of w h et h er R ust on’ s r el eas e w oul d pos e as ubst ant i alr i sk of har m t o o t her s and pro per t y. A s he di d w i t h D r . W olfso n, R ust on c ons i st ently as ked ques t i ons i n an ef f o r tt o de m o ns t r at e t hatl aw enf o r c e m e nto r ga ni z at i o ns a nd o t he r s w e re i n volvedi n an att em pt t o m u rder R u st on . Sp ecif i cal l y, R u st on

• file dam o tio n to re c u s e J u d g e M ille r ;N o. 07- 10433

9 • assert ed that he w as barred f rom a t t en di n g t h e O ct ober 200 4 com petency h eari n g desp i t e t h e factth a t h e nev er get s agi t ated an d h adno p robl em m a in ta in in gco u r t d e c o r u m ;

• qu est i on ed w h y D r. C l ayton’ s notes f rom h er evaluati on s of h i m h adbeen “su p p ress ed ”;

• c ont i nued t o m ake r ef er enc es r egar di ng K at i e Couri c , and as se r t ed that D r . C l ayt on w as lyi ng w hen she t es t i f i ed thatdu ri n g th e Au gust2004 evaluati on R u sto n to ld her t h at K ati e C ou ri c c am e t o D al l as t o m eet R u sto n a n d t h a t C ou ri c ren tedan ap a rtm en t t o b e in th e D a l l a s ar ea to
m e e tRus t o n;

• a sse rted , con trary to D r. C l a yto n ’ s testi m on y, th a t he tol dh er th a t a w h i te fe m a le w h o a p p e a r e dto b e K a tie C o u r icl u r e dR u s to n to m e e t h im in p e r s o n inJ u ly2 0 0 2 a t a n a p a r tm e n t;

• ask e d D r. C l ayton i f she h adbeen i n contactw i t h t h e U n i t ed S t ates A t t orney’ s of

f i ce i n P l an o, T exas;

• as ked D r . C l ayt on if he t ol d hert hathe w as as sa ul t ed and at t ac ked by a b l a ck , m a l e ex -m a ri n e a n dsh e testi fi edtha t he didn ot;

• asked D r. C l ayton if she w as aw are t h at a j u dg e conspi red t o ha ve t h ree i nm at e s a t t ac k Rus t o n; a nd

• s ta te dth a t D r . C la y to n w a s ta m p e r e dw ith a n do r d e r e dt o p e rju r e h e r s e lf
a t t h e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g . R ust on al so a sk ed w het herD r . C l ayt on t es t i f i ed att he O c t obe r2004
c om pet enc y hear i ng t hatR ust on w as f i l t hy, di r t y, an d the m os ti nsane hum an b e in gD r . C la y to n e v e re v a lu a te d
. D r . C la y to n s ta te dth a t s h e d i d n o t k n o w if
s he s ai d that , butt hatw he n shesa w R us t o n he was v e r y di s he ve l e d, a git at e d, st art ed bea t i n g on a gl ass w al l , an d w as “very psych ot i c” in h er opi n i on . R u st on th e n a s k e dif D r . C la y to n h a de v id e n c e o f h is a lle g e db e a tin go n th e g la s s w a ll.N o. 07- 10433

10 W he n Dr. Cl ay t on t e s t i f i e d thato t he r s di d no tw i t ne s s Rus t o n’ s b e hav i o r , he
a n n ou n ced tha t he “didn ’ t bea t on an y w a l l
. ” The G o ve r nm e ntt he n c r o s s - e xa m i ne d Dr
. Cl ay t o n. The G o vernm ent asked D r. C l ayton t o st ate h er qu al i f i cat i on s f

or th e rec ord, an d R u st on obj ect ed
s t at i ng “ [ s ] t ando n ourm o t i o n t o s upp r e s s , o urD aub e r tb e t t e rm o t i o n, 7 02 a nd
ou r m ot i on to d isq u al i f y Ju dg e F i sh. ” Th e courtoverrul ed the obj ect i on . D r. C l ayton test i f

i ed that R u st on suf

fere d from a severe m en t alil l n ess. R u st on obj ect ed, st ati n g “ [w ] e w i l lst an d on our m ot i on t o sup press, our D au bertm ot i on u n der 702 an d ou r m ot i on t o di squ al i f y A
. J oe F i sh. ” T h e cou rtagain overrul ed t h e obj ect i on . D r. C l ayton c on t i n u ed t est i f yi n g, an d s t ated t h at R u st on suf fered f r om a c om bi nat i on of s c hi zo phre ni a and bi pol arw hi c h i s c al l ed s c hi zo - ef fec t ive d iso rd e r. T h e G o v e rn m e n t a sk e d w h e th e r R u sto n so u n d e d a g ita te d w h e n h e left J u d g e R a m ir e z th e th r e a te n in gv o i c e m a il, a n ds h e s ta te dth a t h e d id
. T h is
c o nc l ude d the G o ve r nm e nt ’ s c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n. R u s to n c o n d u c te dre d ir e c t. R u s to n a s k e dD r . C la y to n if sh e co n s id e r e dit
m en t alill n ess to be agit ated w h en som eon e a t t em pts to m u rder you. Sh e st ated t h a ts h e d idn o t. R u s to n th e n a s k e dw h e th e rD r . C la y to n co n s id e r e d“it
m e nt all y i l lt o b e a git at e d when yo u a r e ki dna pe d on f r aud ul e ntpape r w o r k a nd d en i ed a l l of yo u r C on sti tu ti on a l ri gh ts. ” D r. C l a yto n stated th a t sh e d id n o t. T h is co n c lu d e dR u s to n ’ s re d ir e c t. Te s t i m o nyof

D r . G e o rgeTr app Rust o n t he n c all e d Dr
. Tr ap p, aphy s i c i an andps yc hi atr i s t
. Dr. Tr ap p t e s t i f i e d t hat he c o nduc t e d as e r i e s o f i nt e rvi e w s o f

Rus t o n i n Augus t2 00 6 and prepa red a f

orensi c r eport f

or th e c ou rt
. Trap p tes t i f i ed that R u st on nev er a p p e a r e da g ita te d d u r in g th e e x a m in a tio n , th a t R u s to n n e v e rre fe r r e dto K a tie C our i cas hi s f

i ance e, and t hatD r . Trapp c onf i r m ed thatR ust on w as cas ti n an e pi s o de o f

W alke rTe xa s Rang e rt o dr iveSe nat o rK ayBai l e y H u t chi ns o n who
m ad e ag ue s ta ppe ar anc e . Rus t o n t he n a s ke d whether D r . Tr ap p tho ugh tN o. 07- 10433

11 W al ker T exas R an ger w ou l d casta “ crazy m an i ac t o drive S en atorH u t chi n son o n an a tio n a l p r o g r a m .” D r . T r a p p s ta te dth a t h e d idn o t k n o w . D r . Tr ap p f

ur t he rt e s t i f

i e d thata f

t e rhi s i nt e rvi e w s w i t h Rus t o n he
c o nc l ude d t hatRus t o n was c o m pe t e ntt o s t andt r i al
. Dr. Tr ap p t e s t i f i e d thathe b e lie v e dR u s to n s u ffe r e dfr o m ad ia g n o s a b le m e n ta l ill n e s s , b u t t h a t itw a s in
r e m is s io n a t t h e tim e s u ffic ie n t t o p r o v id e fo rco m p e te n c e fo rtr ia l. R u st on t he n a s ke d whet he rhe t o l d Dr
. Tr ap p thatRus t o n r e que s t ed pol i t i cal a sy lu m in Scotl an d an d exp ress ed a d esi re t o l eave the coun t ry. D r. T r a p p s ta te dth a t R u s to n h a d in fa c t to ld h im th is
. R u s to n th e n s ta te d “[s ]o is it y o u rte s tim o n yth a t t h e d e fe n d a n t w o u ldn o t p r e v e n t a n yd a n g e rto th is
so c i et y s i nce he has no i nt ent i on o f l ivi ng i n t hi s so c i et y. ” D r . Trapp ag r ee d t hat i f R u s to n w a s l ivin g o u tsi d e of the U n i tedS tates, he w ou l dn ot be a d a n ge r to th o s e liv in ginth e U n ite dS ta te s . T h is co n c lu d e dD r . T r a p p ’ s te s tim o n y . R e m ai nderof

§ 4243( c )He ari ng Proc e e di ngs T h e cou rt th en i n q u i red as to oth er w i tn ess es R u ston w a n tedto pre sen t. R u s t o n s t a t e dt h a th e s u b p o e n a e dKa t i e C o u r i c , wh o wa s n o ti nt h e c o u r t r o o m, i n an eff

ort to qu estion h er a b ou t a J u l y 2 0 0 6 i n ci d en t w h i ch “th eycon ti n u e to cal la del u si on . ” Th e courti n f orm ed R u st on t h at onl y t h ree s u bp oen as ha d been
a u th o r iz e d , a n dco n tin u e dth e h e a r in gu n til t h e n e x t m o r n in g . W h en courtres u m ed the n ext m orni n g, M arch 28, 200 7, R u st on i n f orm ed t he c our tt hat he had addi t i onal evi denc e t o pr es ent , butt hathe di d nothave an ad di t i on alw i t n ess. R u st on t h en askedt h e court t o t ak e j u di ci alnoti ce of R ust on’ s appl i c at i on f oras yl um i n Sco t l and and hi s i nt ent i on tol eaveA m er i c a. T h e G overnm en tst ated t h at itha d n o add i t i on al e v id e n ce, an d argu ed t h at R u st on fai l ed to prove bycl ear an d conv i n ci n g evi den ce th at hi s r el ease w o ul d n otcre at e as ubs t ant i alr i s k t o o t he r s . Rus t o n o bj e c t e d t o a l lt he

“ t es t i m ony j ustpr es en ted , ” stat i ng t hathe s t oo d on hi s m ot i on t o di sq ual i f y, m ot i on t o s uppres s, and R ul e 7 02 m ot i on. Ru st on al so stat ed thathe hadN o. 07- 10433

12 ad dit i o nale vi den ce thatt he U ni t e d St at e s At t o r ne y s upp r e s s e d, a nd thatt he evi den ce c on si st ed of doct ors’reports th at dem on st rat ed that R u st on suf fered f rom no m en t alil l n ess an d that i tw as a l lfabri cat ed by a F B I agen t
. Th e court ove r r ul ed the o bj ec t i on. R ust on t hen subm i t t ed w hathe r ef er r ed t o a s “ m edi c al
recor ds” to th e court
. T h e courtaccept ed the docu m en t s and describedeach d ocu m en t. T h e cou rt t h en ask edR u ston if h e h a dan y a r g u m e n t he w i sh edto p r e s e n t, a n dR u s to n s ta te dth a t h e w a n te dto ca ll h im s e lf a s aw itn e s s . R ust on t es t i f

i ed t o a Jan uary 2001 arr es tthatto ok pl ac e i n a bank l obby
. R u s to n s ta te dth a t h e d idn o t h a v e ah a n d -h e ldcr o s s b o w a t t h e tim e o f h is
a r r e s t , a n dt h a th e d i dn o ta t t e mp tt o s h o o ta n yS e c r e tS e rv i c e a g e n t s . H e st at ed thatt he vi deo f r om m ul t i pl e s ec urit y c am er as w oul d ve r i f y hi s t es t i m ony. Rust o n t he n t e s t i f

i e d thathe w as de ni e d a l lr i ght s t o pr e s e ntt hi s e vi de nc e up to this po in t, a n d h e w a n tedto state i t f or th e rec ord
. R u ston con ti n u edto te s tifya b o u t o th e ra r r e s ts , re p o r ts , a n d r e c o r d s h e w a n te d to p r e s e n t, a n da g a in refere n ced a h i t m a n w h o a ttem p tedto m u rd er R u ston on thre e se p a ra te oc c as i ons and pr ovi ded t he c our tw i t h t he h i tm an’ s addr es s. Ru st on s t at ed that he s us pe c t e d the Car r o l l t o n Po l i c e a n d P l ano Poli c e o f hir i ng t he hitm an. R u st on t h en t est i f

i ed tha tt w o j u dg es c om m i t t ed j u di ci alm i scondu ctagainst h i m , an d that he w as a w i t n ess aga i n stone of t h ose j u dg es. R u s to n th e n te s tifie d th a t h e n e v e rs ta te dto D r . C la y to n th a t K a tie C o u r ic
m oved i nt o a n a pa r t m e ntt o m e e thi m . H e t e s t i f i e d thathe w as l ur e d t o t he ap art m en t w h ere h e vi ew ed a fem al e w h o ap pea red t o be K ati e C ou ri c. R u st on st ated t h at he fel tun com f ort able w i t h t h e sit u ati on an d l ef tt h e scen e. R u st on e xp l ai ne d thathe w as no ta w ar e if K at i e Cour i cw as t he pe r s o n a tt he
a p a r tm e n t, b u t t h a t h e d i d n o tte ll D r . C la y to n th a t h e w a s e n g a g e dto K a tie Cour i co rknew he rbe c aus e he had ne ve rm e the r . Rus t o n t e s t i f i e d thathe a nd K a tie C ou ri c c om m u n i cat ed w i t h each other t h rough t h e m ai l
. R u st on t h en te s tifie dto b e in gth e v ic tim o f a n a s s a u lt w h ile inD a lla s C o u n tyJ a il.N o. 07- 10433

13 R u s to n th en a l l eg ed th a t h e w a s k i d n a p ed b y a S ecre t S erv i ce A ge n t in
con sp i ra cyw i th tw o j u d ge s, tak en to P a r k la n dH osp i tal, an di nj ected w i th
m e di c at i o n wi t ho utaw ar r anto rc o ur to r de r . Rus t o n t e s t if i e d thatt he y s e nt h i m t o T errell S t ate H ospi t al , an d th at t h e agen t t ol d th e h ospi t alt h at R u st on w asno nc o m pli antw ith m e dic ati o n a nd o ut
- pa ti e ntt reat m en t
. R u st on conti n u ed t est i f yi n g abou trec ords he requ est ed an d di d not receive, an d a t ortsui the f i l ed
w i t h t he D eput y D i r ec t orof the Sec r etServi c e. Ru st on al sot es t i f i ed thati tw as hi s b e l i e f

t hatt he FBI c o nt i nue d “t o eng age i n wi t ne s s t am pe r i ng and
o bs t r uc t i o n o f

j us t i c e . ” Rus t o n wento n t o t e st i f y t h athe di d no tb e l i e vehe
s uf fe r e d f r o m am e nt alil l ne s s o rne e de d m e di c at i o n. Rust o n m ai nt ai ne d thathe w as n o tada nge ro rt hr e att o a nyo ne , b ut
r ec ogni ze d t hathe had us ed b a d j udgm ent
. Ru st on s t at ed thathe w as an al c o ho l i c , a nd t e s t i f

i e d thath e w as “i n r e m i s s i o n. ” Rus t o n a l s o s t at e d thathe
sa idthings i n an ger t h at he shou l d n otha ve sai d “because of t h e cr i m i n alact p erp etra tedag a i n st h i m . ” Rust o n t he n t e s t i f

i e d thathe ha d n o inte nt i o n t o c o nt i nue l ivi ng i n t he U ni t e d St at e s . Rus t o n expl ai ne d thathe a ppli e d f o ra s yl um i n Cana daa nd S cot l an d, an d i n t en de d t o l eave the U n i t ed S t ates i m m edi ately u pon rel ease. Rust o n s t at e d t hat he w o ul d no tb e pr o vi di ng a f o r w ar di ng ad dr e s s b e c aus e he
w a s “t i red of th e g ov ern m en t st a l k i n g [h i m ] a n dtryingto m u rd er [h i m ]. ” The G o ve r nm e ntc r o s s - e xa m i ne d Rus t o n. Rus t o n t e s t i f i e d t hat he l e f

tt he th rea ten i n g m ess a ge f or J u d ge R a m i rez . T h e G ov ern m en t ask edR u ston to
ver i f y t hathe s i gned a st at em entve r i f yi ng t hathe s ai d t he w or ds l ef ton Judge R am i rez’ s answ eri n g m ach i n e. R u st on adm i t t ed that he si gn ed i t , b utc o nt e n ded t h at h e w as b l ackm ai l ed i n t o si gn i n g t h e d ocum en ta s a resultof t h e m al practi ce o f hi s a t t o rne y. The G o ve r nm e ntt he n q ue s t i o ne d Rus t o n a bo utt he v ar i o us persons R u st on t es tif i e d wer ec o ns piri n g t o hu rtR u st on . Th ese persons i n cl u ded
s e v e r a l ju d g e s a n dth e “c r im in a l e le m e n t” o f th e F B I a n dS e c r e t S e rv ic e .N o. 07- 10433

14 Th e G ove r nm entas ked Ru st on if he be l i eve d t he doc t or s w ho t es t i f i ed that he s uf fe r e d f r o m m e nt alil l ne s s w e r e a p artof t he c o ns pir ac y ag ai ns tRus t o n. R u st on t est i f

i ed that he bel i evedt h ey w ere tam pered w i t h
. S peci f i cal l y, R u st on s ta te d th a t on e d o c to r w a s “a le s b ia n w h o w a s r a p e d
. . . a n d h a te s a l lm a le s .” T h e G overnm en taskeda few m ore questi on s and concl u ded i t s c ross e x a m in a tio n . The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatRus t o n fail e d t o pr o veb y c l e arand
c o n v in c in ge v id e n c e th a t h is re le a s e w o u ldn o t c r e a te a s u b s ta n tia l ris ko f b o d ily i nj u ry t o a person or propert y da m age to another d u e to a p resent m en t aldi sease o rde fe ct
. T h e di s t r i c tc o ur to r de r e d thatRus t o n c o nt i nue t o r e m ai n i n t he custody of

t h e A t t orney G en eralun t i lsuch ti m e t h at he coul d be safely rel eased to th e co m m u n ity
. R ust on appeal s f

r om t he fai l ure of t he di st r i c t c our t t o c on d u ct a s ua sp o n te com petency heari n g an d app oi n t coun sel based on R u st on ’ s c o n du ct d u r in gth e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g .I I . DI S CU S S I ON A. Com pe t e nc y Hear i ng W e ha ve n ot l ocat ed c on t rol l i n g preceden t as t o w h at a di st ri ctcourtm u st do w hen enc ount er ed w i t h a def endantof

ques t i onabl e c om p eten cy duri ng a § 424 3(c) hea ri n g; how ever, “w e f i n d that j u ri sprud en ce dev el oped
. . . an d rel ated [t o] com p eten cyqu estion s i n cri m i n a ltri a lpr oce ed i n gs [to be ] i n stru ctive . ” Mata v. Joh n son , 2 1 0 F .3 d3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 1. St andard of

R evi ew W h eth er th e d is tr ict cou rt erred i n n ot su asp o n tehol di n g a com petency h e a r in gis re v ie w e dfo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S e e, e.g ., Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mess ervey , 31 7 F. 3d4 57 , 4 63 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 2)
. “W he t he r‘ a r e as o nab l e c aus e ’e xi st s t o put th e cou rt on n oti ce th a t th e defen d a n t m i gh t be m en tally in com p eten t i s l eft to th e so u n d d i scre ti on of th e dist ri ct cou rt. ” Un itedS ta tes v. D a v is , 61 F. 3d 291,N o. 07- 10433

15 3 0 4 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d); seea lso Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l d en , 527 F. 3d 65 3, 6 59 ( 7t h Ci r . 2 00 8)
. “The di s t r i c tc o ur ti s i n t he b e s tpo s i t i o n t o de t e r m i ne th e n ee df

or a com p eten cyh ea ri n g.” A l d en , 5 2 7 F .3da t 6 5 9 (cita tion om itted ). B ut“ [i] f t he t r i al c our t r ec eived evi denc e, vi ew ed obj ec t ively, t hats houl d have
r ai se d a re as onabl e doubtas t o co m pet enc y, yetfai l ed t o m ake f urt heri nqui r y, th e d e fe n d a n t h a s b e e n d e n ie dafa ir” p r o c e e d in g . Ma ta , 2 1 0 F .3 da t 3 2 9 ; see als o A l d en , 527 F. 3d at659 ( expl ai ni ng t hata di st r i c tc our tm ay su asp o n teorder
a c o m pe t e nc y he ar i ng “ i f t he r e i s r e as o nab l e c aus e t o b e l i e vet hatt he de fe nda nt
m a yp r e s e n tlyb e s u ffe r in gfr o m am e n ta l d is e a s e o rd e fe c t r e n d e r in gh im
m en t al l y i n com petent to the extent that he i s un able t o un derst an d the n ature
a n dco n s e q u e n c e s o f th e p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im o rto a s s is t p r o p e r lyinh is d e fe n s e .”) (c ita tio n o m itt e d); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mark s , 530 F
. 3d7 99, 814 ( 9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in gt h a t th e a p p r o p r ia te in q u ir y“ is n o t w h e th e rt h e t r ia l c o u r t c o u ld hav e f o und t he de fe nda nte i t he rc om pet e nto ri nc o m pe t e nt , no rw he t he rt he revi ew i n g court w ou l d f i n d th e defenda n t i n com petent” bu ti n st ead“t h e rec ord is re v ie w e dto s e e if th e e v id e n c e o f in c o m p e te n c e w a s s u c h t h a ta re a s o n a b le j udg e w o ul d b e e xp e c t e d t o e xp e r i e nc e ag e nui ne do ubtr e s pect i ng t he d e fe n d a n t’s co m p e te n c e .”) (q u o ta tio n s o m itt e d). 2 . A n a ly s is T h e st atutor y requ i rem en t s f or a di st ri ctcourtt o su asp o n teho l d a
com petency h eari n g are setout i n 18 U
. S
. C
. § 424 1( a) , en t i t l ed “[ d]et erm i n ati on o f m e n ta l co m p e te n c yto s ta n dtr ia l o rto u n d e r g o p o s tr e l e a s e p r o c e e d in g s .” S ection42 4 1 (a) states tha t [t] h e c o u r ts h a l l
. . . o r d e r[] a[c o m p e t e nc y ] h e a r i n go n i t s o wn m o t i o n, if

t he r e i s r e as o nab l e c aus e t o b e l i e vet hatt he de fe nda nt m ay p resently be suff eri n g f rom a m en t aldi sease ordefect r e n d e r in gh im m e n ta llyin c o m p e te n t to th e e x te n t t h a t h e is u n a b le t o und er st and t he nat ure and c ons equenc es of the pr oc ee di ngs a g a in s t h im o rto a s s is t p r o p e r lyinh is d e fe n s e .N o. 07- 10433

16 In determ i n i n g w h et h er th e courtshou l d order a § 4241 ( a) hea ri n g, t h e court
m u stconsi der t h ree fact ors: (1) the exi st en ce of a h i st ory of i rrat i on albeh avior , ( 2) t h e defen da n t ’ s dem ean or att ri al , an d ( 3) pri or m edi calo p in ion on c o m p e te n c y . S ee Mess ervey , 3 1 7 F .3 da t 4 6 3
. A ll th r e e fa c to r s a r e “r e le v a n t in determ i n i n g w h et h er f u rt h er i n qu i ry i s r equ i red, bu t
. . . even one of t h ese fact ors st an di n g al on e m ay, i n som e circum st an ces, be suff i ci en t
. T h ere are, of course, no f

i xedor i m m u t ab le sig n s w h i ch i n vari ably i n di cat e t h e need f or fu r th e rin q u ir yto d e te r m in e fitn e s s to p r o c e e d ; t h e q u e s tio n is o fte n ad iffic u lt
o n e inw h ic h a w id e r a n g e o f m a n ife s ta tio n s a n ds u b tle n u a n c e s a r e im p lic a te d .” T aylor v. Horn , 504 F. 3d 416, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (c i t i ng D rope v. Mi ssouri , 20 U
. S
. 162 , 172 , 180 ( 197 5) )
. Th e rec ord ref l ect s t h at R u st on m eet s t h e t h ree fac t o r s a s s e to uti n Mess ervey . R u s to n h a s a n e x te n s iv e h is to r yof irra tion a lbe h a vior p a iredw ithm u ltip le di agno s e s do c um e nt i ng hi s m e nt alil l ne s s . I ti s i m po r t antt o no t e t hatt he psych i atr i st s w h o exam i n ed R u st on f ou n d that he suff

ered f rom ei t h er a d e lu s io n a l d is o r d e ro rp a r a n o ids c h iz o p h r e n ia . A ft e re x a m in in gR u s t o n ’s hi st or y, i ti s appar entt o the C our tt hathe has an ext ens ive hi st or y o f i r r at i onal behavi oras a dir ec tr es ul tof del usi ons . Spec i f

i c al l y, R u ston b eli eve s t hat
v a r io u s la w e n fo r c e m e n t a g e n c ie s , m e m b e r s o f th e ju d ic ia r y , a n d p o s s ib lyK a tie C o u r ica r e e n g a g e dinap lo t t o m u r d e rh im
. Th e i nst antc as e a r os e o utof a t h rea t R u st on i ss ued agai nstJudge R am i r ez . I n t he t hre at eni ng m es sa ge, R ust on s pec i f i c al l y all ege d t hatJudge R a m i rez w a s en ga ge di n an attem p tedm u rd er p l ot a ga i n st R u ston
. A ft er a rres t, R u sto n fi l ed d ocum en t s w i t h t h e courtasser t i n g t h at he w as i n di ct ed n ot becau se h e threatened a federalof f i ci al , bu tbecau se t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct Cour t f o r t he N o r t he r n D i s t r i c t o f Tex as w as at t e m pt i ng t o c o ve r up a m u rder t o hir e pl ott hatJu dge R am i r ez w as i nvolved i n pl anni ng. T he G ove r nm entw as unab l e t o pr o c e e d a ga i ns tRus t o n b e c aus e t he do c t o r s w ho e xa m i ne d hi m f o undN o. 07- 10433

17 h im to b e in c o m p e te n t. W h e n a s s e s s in gc o m p e te n c y , t h e co u r t m u s t “ a s c e r ta in
w h e th e rac r im in a l d e fe n d a n t ‘h a s s u ffic ie n t p r e s e n t a b ilityto co n s u lt w ith h is l aw yerw i t h a r eas onabl e de gr ee of r at i onalunders t andi ng – and w het herhe has
ar a t io n a l a s w e lla s fa c t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n go f t h e p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s th im .’” D ro pe , 4 2 0 U. S. a t1 7 2 (c i t i ng D u sky v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 6 2 U .S
. 4 0 2 (19 6 0 )). Specif i c al l y, R ust on w as di agnos ed w it h a delusi onaldi so r derof a pr os ec ut or i al ty p e , w h ic h im p a ir e dR u s to n ’ s a b ilityto p r o p e r lya s s is t c o u n s e l. W h en R u st on w as even t u al l y f ou n d c om petent t o st an d t ri al , D r. W ol fson m ad e i tcl ear to the di st ri ctcourtt h at R u st on w as far f rom cured. D r. W ol fson t e s t i f i e d thatw hi l e R us t o n w as pr e s e nt l y c ap ab l e of pr o c e e di ng t o a dj udi c at i o n, he s t i l ls uf

fer ed f r om del usi ons t hatc oul d i m pai rh i s a b i l i t y t o m ake l egal deci si on s i n t h e f

u t u re. A f

t er R u st on an d th e G overnm en tagreed that R u st on w as not guilt y by reason of i n san i t y, hi s ow n att orney exp l ai n ed to t h e di st ri ct
c o u r tt h a th e d i dn o tb e l i e v e R u s t o n ma i n t a i n e dc o mp e t e n c yb e t w e e n t h e t i me R u ston w a s fou n d com p eten t a n d th e da te the distri ct cou rt en tered j u d gm en t. A tth e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g , D r . W o lfs o n t e s t if ie dt h a th e r e v ie w e dR u s t o n ’s f i l i ngs w i t h t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf r o m t he t i m e t he di s t r i c tc o ur te nt e r e d j udg m e nt
a n dthe § 42 4 3 (c) h ea ri n g. D r. W olfson sp ecif i ca l l y testif

i edtha t R u ston ’ s ab i l i ty t o m ak e cogent argum en t s det eri orat ed d u ri n g t h i s t i m e. Fu rt h er, D r. W ol fson exp l ai n ed that t h e m ostrec en tf i l i n gs app eared to dem on st rat e “ an expa n si on o f [R u sto n ’ s] d e lu sio n a l sy ste m .” D r. W o lfso n ’ s te stim o n ya t R u sto n ’s
c o m pe t e ncy heari n g w arn ed that R u st on ’ s l evelof com petency w as l i kely t ow ane an d ba sed on R u st on ’ s f i l i n gs, D r. W ol fson f

ou n d t h at R u st on w as suf feri n g j u st t h at s ortof

deter i orat i on . Th i s t est i m on y, i n conj u n ct i on w i t h R u st on ’ s hi st ory of i r r at i onalbe havi or , m i ghthave pro vi ded a r eas onabl e c ause t o b eli evet hat R u s to n w a s p r e s e n tlys u ffe r in gfr o m am e n ta l d is e a s e o rd e fe c t. T h i s, how ever, w as not t h e onl y evi den ce bef ore th e di st ri ct c ou rtof Rust o n’ s q ue s t i o nab l e c o m pe t e nc y. Rus t o n’ s de m e ano r andq ue s t i o ni ng dur i ngN o. 07- 10433

18 t he § 4243(c ) hear i ng pr ovi ded addit i onalr eas on t o b eli evet hatR ust on m ay h a v e b e e n s u ffe r in gfr o m am e n ta l d is e a s e o rd e fe c t. D uring t he m agi st r at e j udge’ s hear i ng t o de t er m i ne if R ust on w as com p eten t t o w a ive cou n sel, R u ston w a s ge n era l l y ab l e t o a n sw er th e m a gistrate j u dg e’ s questi on s, al t h ou gh t h e l an gu age qu ot ed ab ove i n di cat ed that R u st on m ay h av es t i l lbeen suf feri n g f rom “ del u si on alm ater i al
. ” B u tR u st on ’ s perceived l ev el of com p eten cyat th e m a gistrate jud ge ’ s h ea ri n g do es no t a b rog a te th e d u ty o f aju d g e to “a lw a y s b e a le r t t o c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u g g e s tin gach a n g e th a t w o u ld
ren d er th e a ccu sed u n a b l e to m ee t th e stan d a rd s of co m p eten ce to” pro cee dw i th th e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g . See, e . g. , D ro pe , 4 2 0 U .S . a t 1 8 1
. A t t h e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g , R u s to n d idn o t d e m o n s tr a te a “ r a tio n a l a s w e ll
a s fa ctu a lu n d ersta n d i n g o f th e p roce ed i n gs a ga i n st h i m . ” Se eD ro pe , 20 U
. S. at 172 (cit ati on om i t t ed). I n st ead , R u st on ’ s qu est i on i n g, obj ect i on s, an d beh avior
a t th e h e a r in gp r o v id e dr e a s o n a b le c a u s e t o b e lie v e th a t R u s to n w a s p r e s e n tly suf fer i ng f r om a m ent aldi se as e o rdef ec t , s pec i f

i c al l y a m ent aldi se as e that
e x h ib its its e lf th r o u g h d e lu s io n s , re n d e r in gR u s to n m e n ta llyin c o m p e te n t. S ee, e. g. , A l d en , 5 27 F. 3d a t6 59
. Rus t o n c o nt i nue d t o a s s e r tt hatt he g o ve r nm e nt
w as eng aged i n a pl ott o ki l lhi m an d t h at K ati e C ou ri c m ay h ave been i n volved i n the plot. H e a ctive l y in sinu a tedtha t l a w en forcem en t ag en ts t a m p ere dw i th
w i t ne s s e s . H e al s o al l e ge d thathe w as a t t ac ke d b y fe l l o w i nm at e s . Dur i ng t he § 4 24 3(c ) he ar i ng, Rust o n l ar ge l y fail e d t o a s k r e l e va nta nd p e r t i ne ntq ue s t i o ns regardi n g t h e substantive i ssue of t h e h eari n g–w h et h er R u st on ’ s r el ease posed
as ig n ific a n t r is ko f b o d ilyinju r yto o th e r s . R u s to n ’ s d e lu s io n s w e r e re a d ily
a p p a r e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g . W hil e Ru st on w as f

ound co m peten t at h i s m ost rece n t com p eten cyheari ng, t h at c om petency h eari n g w as cond u ct ed si x m o n th s p rior t o t h e § 4243 (c) h eari n g. D r. W ol fson m ad e i tcl ear at t h e com petency h eari n g t h at he di d n ot b eli ev e R u ston ’ s cu rren t com p eten cyto be pe rm a n en t, u rg in gt h e cou rt t oN o. 07- 10433

19 proceed w i t h prosecuti on i m m edi a te ly w h i l e R u st on coul d st i l lbe consi dered
c o m pe t e nt
. O nc e t he § 42 43 (c ) he ar i ng be ga n, i t i s ap pa r e nt f r o m t he r e c o r d a nd tr a n s c r ip ts th a t R u s to n h a da g a in d e s c e n d e din to irr a tio n a l b e h a v io r . W e ho l d th a t th e dist ri ct cou rt a b u sed i ts d i scre ti on w h en i t d id n o t s ua sp o n teh ol d a com petency h eari n g u pon observi n g t h e err ati c beha vi or of R u st on at hi s § 424 3(c) hea ri n g. Th e di st ri ct co u rt w as on n ot i ce of R u st on ’ s t roub l ed hi s t o r y and had a dut y t o e ns ur e t hatRus t o n was c o m pe t e ntb e f o r e a l l o w i ng t he § 4 2 4 3 (c ) p r o c e e d in gto co n tin u e . B . W ai verof

C oun s el W e d e c lin e to re a c h th e is s u e o f w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r te r r e din al l ow i n g R u st on t o w aive h i s r i gh tt o coun selbef ore proc eedi n gw it h t h e § 42 43 (c ) he ar i ng i n l i ghto f t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s r e centde c i s i o n i n I ndi ana v. Edw ar ds , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 3 7 9 (2 0 0 8 ). I n Edw ar ds , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ldth a t t h e C o n s tit u tio n d o e s n o t fo rb id st at es f r om i nsi st i ng upon r epr es ent at i on by c ounse lf ort hos e c om pet ente no ugh t o st an d tr i al bu t w h o suf fer f rom severe m en t alil l n ess t o t h e poi n tw h ere th ey a r e n o t c o m p e te n t t o co n d u c t t r ia l p r o c e e d i n g s b yt h e m s e lv e s . I d. at2387- 88. W e n ote th a t Edw ar dsi nvolves r epr es ent at i on w i t hi n t he c ont extof a c r i m i nal t ri al , an d R u st on ’ s app eali n volves a com m i t m en tproceedi n g. N on et h el ess, Edw ar dsapp ears di rect l y ap pl i ca b le t o t h e i ssues presented i n t h i s c ase. Edw ar dsco n t e m p la te s as c e n a r io w h e r e acr im in a l d e fe n d a n t is co n c lu s iv e ly
c om pet entt o s t and t r i al , bu tm ay notbe c om pet entt o c onductt r i alpr oc ee di ngs byhi s o rhe r s e l f
. Bec aus e t hi s Cour tha s de t e r m i ne d thataq ue s t i o n r e m ai ns a s to w h e th e r R u s to n w a s c o m p e te n t to p r o c e e d w ith th e § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g , it is i nap pr o pr i at e t o m o vet o t he ne xts t e p o ut l i ne d i n Edw ar dsan d m ak e a de t e r m i nat i o n a s t o w he t he rR us t o n w as co m pe t e ntt o re pr e s e nthi m s e l f a tt he § 4 2 4 3 (c ) h e a r in g .N o. 07- 10433

20 I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or th e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e R E V E R S E an d R E M A N D t o t h e di st ri ct
c o ur tf o rpr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.