Specifically, at paragraph 3 of the Motion, Attorney Iacopino states that “[a]lthough a 1

difficult relationship ensued [after counsel was appointed to represent the defendant] throughout

the appointment and trial of this matter the Defendant was minimally able to assist counsel in the

preparation and presentation of a defense. However, that has now dramatically changed." 

Additionally, the Court, defense counsel and the government repeatedly reviewed and addressed

the issue of competence prior to trial. Due to the nature of statements made and pleading filed by

the defendant, the issue of competence was first raised by the government in a Motion for Status

Conference filed on March 6, 2009 (document #24). The Court directly addressed the issue at

the Status Conference held March 11, 2209 and advised all counsel and the defendant that the

Court would be keeping a close eye on the issue. Finally, on June 2, 2009, the Court issued

Competency Findings as to Edward Brown (document # 96) in which the Court stated, “[i]n the

Court’s current assessment of all its written and oral interactions with this Defendant, it is

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Cr. No. 09-30-GZS

EDWARD BROWN and

ELAINE BROWN

Government’s Partial Objection to Motion for Competency Evaluation

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and for Ancillary Relief (document # 204)

On September 11, 2009, Attorney Michael Iacopino, counsel for Edward Brown, filed a

Motion asking the Court to order three things. First that a competency evaluation of defendant

Edward Brown be conducted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Second, that the evaluation be

conducted in the District of New Hampshire. And, third, that the Court authorize $2,500 for

services other than counsel to retain a forensic psychiatrist.

For the reasons set forth below, although the government does not believe there is the

requisite “reasonable cause” to require a competency evaluation it does not object to such, but the

government does object to the other relief sought.

It is important to note that Attorney Iacopino’s concern relates exclusively to sentencing

and does not relate to the trial of this matter. Also, the basis upon which defense counsel moves 1

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 206 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 4
overwhelmingly clear that Edward Brown does not have a mental disease or defect rendering him

incompetent.” Document # 96, Competency Findings as to Edward Brown @ p. 4. No

objections were filed to those findings, nor did the defendant or defense counsel thereafter

suggest or state that the Defendant’s competence was in question. Consequently, the issue before

the Court is limited to whether the Defendant is “presently suffering from a mental disease or

defect rendering him incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and

consequences of the proceedings against him [,the sentencing,] or to assist properly in his

defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a).

 In United States v. Riley et al, Cr. No. 07-189-GZS, co-defendant Daniel Riley made 2

many similar statements reflective of a belief system similar to the Defendant’s. Mr. Riley, upon

motion of his defense counsel after trial but before sentencing, was examined by the Bureau of

Prisons and this Court found him competent. In so doing the Court hear testimony from Dr.

Christine Scronce, a clinical psychologist employed at the Federal Medical Center in Devens,

MA. Similar concerns of delusion were raised by Mr. Riley’s defense counsel. In opining that

Mr. Rile was not delusion Dr. Scronce testified, in part, that, “delusion is defined as a fixed false

belief a person adheres to no matter what the evidence countering that belief, and an important

consideration in deciding whether a belief is delusional versus something that is an over-valued

idea, some type of ideology, is whether the belief is consistent with that person’s background or

culture or subculture of an individual. So is this an idea that springs from mental illness,

idiosyncratic that’s specific to the person, or is this part of a set of ideas that many people believe

in?” Transcript of October 28, 2008 competency hearing @ pp. 16-17; Document # 612. Dr.

Scronce went on to state, “the fact that what [Mr. Riley] was saying was very much consistent

with the ideas of a number of people that are part of the so-called anti-government or sovereign

citizens movements were significant to me.” Id. @ p. 17. Dr. Scronce opined that Mr. Riley,

who uttered many of the same statements Mr. Brown has uttered, was competent. 

for the competency evaluation appear to be, inter alia, the Defendant’s refusal to communicate

with counsel and the Court in a meaningful way. Although defense counsel fills the record with

references to various possible mental diseases, and notes comments by the defendant that clearly

suggest his thoughts regarding the judicial system are outside the mainstream , such statements 2

and unschooled diagnostic references by defense counsel do not give rise to the “reasonable

cause” required under the statute, and the Court would be justified in denying the Motion. 

 The law in the First Circuit is clear that a District Court’s decision to not hold a

competency hearing will be reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be affirmed as long as there

was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support that decision. United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez,

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 206 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 4
570 F.3d 75, 80 (1 Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Bruck, 152 F.3d 40, 46 (1 Cir. 1998)). st st

See also, United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 561 F.3d 22 (1 Cir. 2009). st

However, because the issue of competence has been raised directly by defense counsel,

and it is defense counsel who is, and has been, most intimately involved with the defendant (see

United States v. Muriel Cruz, 412 F.3d 9, 13 (1 Cir. 2005)(“defense counsel enjoys a unique st

vantage for observing whether her client is competent ... (citations omitted))), the government

submits that a minimal delay in the sentencing so that the Bureau of Prisons can conduct a

competency evaluation, and put the issue to bed once and for all may be the more prudent course.

However, the government does object to the Court ordering a competency evaluation to

be conducted in the District of New Hampshire, and it objects to the Court authorizing $2,500 for

the retention of a forensic psychiatrist. The government requests that if the Court orders a

competency evaluation, that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) the defendant be examined by a

psychiatrist or psychologist at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), as is done frequently in situations

where the defendant is in custody. Such an inpatient examination, as opposed to what defense

counsel suggests, allows appropriate time for not only examination and testing but for

observation, which often times appears to be critical to an accurate diagnosis. If after that BOP

examination is concluded, and the report is prepared, defense counsel or the defendant believe a

separate examination is necessary such is authorized by the statute with Court approval.

WHEREFORE, although the government submits that the requisite “reasonable cause” does not

exist to order a competency evaluation, it does not object to the Motion. It does, however, object

to the request that the examination be conducted in the District of New Hampshire, and it does

object to the request for $2,500 to retain a forensic psychiatrist, at this stage.

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 206 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 4
September 17, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

John P. Kacavas

United States Attorney

 By: /s/ Arnold H. Huftalen 

Arnold H. Huftalen

Assistant U.S. Attorney

N.H. Bar Assoc. No. 1215

53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor

Concord, New Hampshire 03301

(603) 225-1552

Certification of Service

I certify that service is being made of this pleading upon counsel for each defendant,

Michael J. Iacopino and Bjorn Lange respectively, via ecf filing notice.

/s/ Arnold H. Huftalen 

Arnold H. Huftalen

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 206 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 4 of 4