UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Cause No. 1:16-CR-33-HAB

)

ALA EL BASHATLY )

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 16, 2020, this Court held a hearing to determine whether Defendant is 

competent to stand trial. At the conclusion of that hearing, this Court found Defendant competent. 

The purpose of this Opinion and Order is to detail the reasons for that finding.

A. Background

1. Procedural History

On March 29, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion to Determine Competency. (ECF No. 

35). On April 13, 2017, the Defendant filed a supplement to the Motion to Determine Competency 

and included with the supplement a copy of a report from Dr. Steven Ross. (ECF No. 39).

On April 19, 2017, the Government filed a Motion for Psychiatric/Psychological 

Examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. (ECF No. 41). As the Motion indicates, the Defendant 

was Indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in a 5 Count Indictment charging him with violations of 18

U.S.C. §§ 2423(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The Motion indicates that on March 29, 2017, counsel 

for the Defendant raised an issue about the Defendant’s competency. Thereafter, the Government 

filed a Motion for a hearing to determine the Defendant’s competency to stand trial. As a part of 

that Motion, the Government also requested that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b), the Defendant 

be ordered to undergo a psychiatric or psychological examination by a licensed or certified 

psychiatrist or psychologist.
2

On April 24, 2017, the Court granted the Government’s Motion for a Psychiatric 

Examination but withheld ruling on the Defendant’s Motion to determine the Defendant’s 

competency until such time as the Court received the psychiatric report prepared by the Bureau of 

Prisons. On July 21, 2017, the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, issued a forensic 

report finding that the Defendant was not currently suffering from a mental disease or defect which 

would render him mentally incompetent to the extent he would be unable to understand the nature 

and consequences of the proceedings against him or properly assist in his defense. Based upon 

this finding, the Court issued an Order of Referral on August 29, 2017, referring the matter to 

Magistrate Judge Susan Collins to conduct any necessary hearings on the Defendant’s Motion to 

Determine Competency and Supplement. (ECF No. 52).

After a number of continuances, a competency hearing was conducted before Magistrate 

Judge Susan Collins on October 20, 2017, and October 26, 2017. On November 21, 2017, 

Magistrate Judge Susan Collins filed her Report and Recommendation finding that the Defendant 

Bashatly was currently competent to stand trial. (ECF No. 71). On December 12, 2017, after the 

time for filing any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation had passed 

and neither party had filed an objection, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendations, found that the Defendant was competent to stand trial and denied the 

Defendant’s Motion for a Psychiatric Exam. (ECF No. 72). Thereafter, the Court scheduled this 

matter for trial.

The Defendant’s current counsel entered their Appearance on or about February 1, 2018. 

On May 14, 2018, the Defendant filed another Motion for a Psychiatric Examination. (ECF No. 

112). On May 18, 2018, the Defendant filed a Supplement to the Motion for a Psychiatric 

Examination which advised the Court that Doctor John Newbauer was willing to perform the
3

requested competency evaluation. Following an in-person hearing conducted on May 16, 2018, 

the Court denied, without prejudice, the Defendant’s Motion to Determine the Defendant’s 

Competency on May 31, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the Defendant again renewed his request for 

a hearing to determine the mental competency of the Defendant. (ECF No. 127). In support of his 

request, the Defendant included a report from Dr. Newbauer providing his opinion that the 

Defendant appeared to be suffering from a psychiatric disorder and was not capable of cooperating 

with his defense team. On August 20, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion 

for a Psychiatric Exam and Competency Hearing. The Court found that no further exams were 

required but set the matter for a sealed competency hearing on September 7, 2018.

After various continuances, a competency hearing was conducted on November 9, 2018. 

On November 15, 2018, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant 

was not competent to stand trial. (ECF No. 140). In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that 

Dr. Newbauer’s testimony and the Defendant’s own physical condition were persuasive. Based 

upon the Court’s finding that the Defendant was not competent to assist in his own defense, the 

Court committed the Defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and 

treatment in a suitable facility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). The Defendant was to be 

hospitalized for a reasonable period of time until either his mental condition improved so that the 

trial could proceed, or the pending charges were disposed of according to law. Following the 

Court’s Order, the Defendant was admitted to the mental health unit of the Federal Medical Facility 

in Butner, North Carolina.

An November 4, 2019, this Court received a letter dated October 31, 2019, from the Federal 

Medical Center in Butner which included a Certificate of Restoration of Competency to Stand 

Trial as well as a report regarding the forensic evaluation of the Defendant conducted by Dr.
4

Adeirdre Stribling Riley, a forensic psychologist at the Butner Facility (the “Report”). Thereafter, 

the Court scheduled this matter for a competency hearing.

2. Forensic Evaluation

The Report documents a remarkable recovery for the Defendant during his treatment. The 

Defendant was able to verbally acknowledge a thorough and correct understanding of his role in 

the competency evaluation as well as the factors conducted on the issue of his competency. The 

Defendant participated in a competency restoration group on a weekly basis, which covered the 

review of charges, pleas, and potential consequences, in addition to a review of courtroom 

personnel, courtroom proceedings, trial and plea bargains. Finally, the group discussed concepts 

related to the Defendant’s ability to communicate with his attorney, providing testimony, and

assisting in his defense. On an individual basis, the Defendant discussed his toleration of the stress 

of the proceedings. The Report notes that the Defendant successfully completed competency 

restoration with “full mastery.”

While the Defendant was provided with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the Report indicates 

that the Defendant has responded well to medication and that, since being treated, he has not 

exhibited disorganized speech or behavior or negative symptoms. The Report goes on to note that 

the Defendant’s statements are organized and linked to the primary topic of discussion and that he 

typically presents with stable affect and congruent mood. Finally, it indicated that he has not 

endorsed having hallucinations of any form. The Report finds that while the Defendant has a 

chronic mental health condition, his condition is responsive to medication treatment with 

antipsychotic medication.

The Defendant has expressed a thorough understanding of the specifics of the charges 

pending against him and has accurately provided information regarding the roles of the courtroom
5

participants, including the judge and the jury. The Defendant has demonstrated adequate rational 

ability to consider the potential legal options at trial and accurately articulated the available pleas 

and his understanding of the impact of a guilty plea. The Defendant has a positive view of his 

attorneys and has a realistic expectation that is not based on delusional ideation. He has indicated 

that he is willing to work with his attorneys to settle any disagreements.

Finally, the Report finds that the Defendant has demonstrated a capacity to learn new 

material and the ability to use this material to make decisions. The Report notes that the Defendant 

has a thorough understanding of the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and 

a basic ability to assist properly in his own defense. He knows the general proceedings of the 

courtroom and has knowledge of the roles of courtroom personnel. He is able to discuss the 

benefits and risks inherent in the available pleas and has an awareness regarding the possible 

penalties of incarceration associated with the alleged offenses.

B. Legal Analysis

Following the Defendant’s commitment to the custody of the Attorney General, allfurther 

competency proceedings were subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e).

When the director of the facility in which a defendant is hospitalized pursuant to 

subsection (d) determines that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he 

is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him 

and to assist properly in his defense, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect 

with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy 

of the certificate to the defendant’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. 

The court shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 

4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant. If, after the hearing, the 

court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has recovered to 

such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the 

proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, the court shall order 

his immediate discharge from the facility in which he is hospitalized and shall set 

the date for trial or other proceedings.
6

Where, as here, the Court receives the certificate of competency and there is no objection from 

either party, a court has discretion as to whether it will hold a competency hearing. Whalem v. 

United States, 346 F.2d 812, 815 (C.A.D.C. 1965) (overruled on other grounds by United States

v. Marble, 940 F.2d 1543 (C.A.D.C. 1991)). In determining whether a defendant is competent, a 

court may consider testimony from psychiatrists, the defendant’s behavior both before the court 

and elsewhere, intelligence, lapses in memory, unresponsiveness, and defense counsel’s 

observations. United States v. Segal, 398 F. Supp. 2d 912, 916 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendant is competent 

to stand trial. Dr. Stribling Riley’s report, which was admitted as an exhibit to the competency 

hearing without objection, is compelling evidence of competency as set forth above. The 

Defendant’s behavior at the hearing supported the Report. The Defendant was alert, oriented, and 

responsive to the Court’s questions. The Defendant confirmed that he had reviewed and discussed 

the Report with his counsel, that he understood the proceedings, and that he had discussed and 

understood his plea options. The Defendant acted appropriately throughout the hearing, nodding 

in agreement as the Court reviewed the findings in the Report. The Defendant’s counsel further 

supported the findings in the Report, confirming that they had been able to review and discuss the 

Report and proceedings with the Defendant. Neither the Government nor the Defendant presented 

any evidence that would indicate that the Defendant is not competent. The Court has little trouble, 

then, concluding that Defendant is competent to stand trial.

C. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, and for all the reasons set forth on the record of the competency 

hearing, the Court FINDS that the Defendant is competent to stand trial. This matter will be set for 

trial through a separate order.
7

SO ORDERED on January 17, 2020.

s/ Holly A. Brady

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT