# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 31 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

St ev en M. Eva ns

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 2 0, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Au gu st 23 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GERR ARD , Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

St ev en Eva ns was in di ct ed fo r un la w f u l l y a tt em

pt in g to rem ov e hi s ch il dr en

fro m th e Un i te d St at es , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 12 04 (a). On req ue st of Eva ns ’s

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.co un se l, the di st ric t cou rt or de red th at Eva ns be de ta in ed to un de rg o a co m pe te nc y 2

ev al ua ti on as al lo wed by 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (b ). Bas ed on th e co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , th e co ur t fo un d th at Eva ns was no t com pe te nt to pr oc eed wit h th e tri al an d ord ered

th at he be ho sp it al iz ed un de r se ct io n 42 41 (d ) fo r a pe rio d no t to ex ceed fo ur m on th s

to de te rm in e whe th er th ere was a su bs ta nt ia l pr ob ab il it y th at Eva ns wou ld at ta in

cap aci ty to st an d tri al in th e fo res eeab le fu tu re. Eva ns fil ed th is ap pe al ch al le ng in g

hi s co m m it men t o n g r o u nd s th at th e co ur t di d no t pr ov id e hi m wit h a “ le ga l,

co ns ti tu ti on al ly ad eq ua te co m pe te nc y he ari ng un de r ti tl e 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (c).” W e

affi rm

.

I.

On Apr il 9, 20 11

, at ap pr ox im at e l y 1 0 : 0 0 a.m ., Offi cer St ev en Cru m e of th e

Lee’s Su m

m it

, Mi ss ou ri Po li ce Dep art m en t arri ve d at th e ho m e of Ju di t h Eva ns , Ev an s’s m ot he r, in res po ns e to an Am be r Aler t th at st at ed two ch il dr en h a d b e e n

ab du ct ed by th ei r fat he r. Ju di th Eva ns in fo rm ed O f f i c er Cru m e th at he r two

g r a n d c h il dr en were m is si ng

. Sh e to ld th e of fic er th at a co ur t or de r in he r s o n ’s

di vo rce cas e req ui red th at sh e or he r hu sb an d be pr es en t at a n y t i me t ha t he r

gr an dc hi ld ren were in th e pr es en ce o f Eva ns

. Ju di th Eva ns to ld Offi cer Cru m e th at

sh e ha d se en th e ch il dr en at 10 :3 0 p.m

. th e ni gh t be fo re bu t ha d no t se en th em th at

m or ni n g; he r so n was al so m is si ng

. Late r th at da y , th e Lee’s Su m m it Po li ce

De p a r tm en t was co nt act ed by Can ad ia n of fic ia ls who st at ed th at th ey ha d

ap pr eh en de d St ev en Eva ns an d th e ch il dr en at th e Uni te d St at es -Can ad ia n bo rd er.

Eva ns was arre st ed

, an d a gr a n d ju r y ret ur ne d an in di ct m en t ch arg in g Eva ns wit h

kn owi ng ly rem ov in g hi s two ch il dr en , who ha d no t y et a tt ai ne d th e ag e of si xt een

y ears , fro m th e Uni te d St at es to Can ad a wit h th e in te nt io n to ob st ru ct th e la wfu l

Th e Hon or ab le Fern an do J. Gait an , Jr

., Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 2

Co ur t fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Sara h W

. Hay s, Uni te d S t a t es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ex erci se of pa ren ta l rig ht s of th e ch il dr en ’s mo t h e r , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1 20 4( a).

II.

The co ur t m ay or de r a co m pe te nc y he ari ng at an y ti m e aft er th e co m m en cem en t

of a pr os ecu ti on bu t be fo re se nt en ci ng t o d e t e r mine if a de fen da nt is co m pe te nt to

c on ti nu e wit h cri m in al pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m

. 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (a). At Eva n s ’s

de te nt io n he ari ng , hi s at to rn ey m ad e a n o r al m ot io n fo r a co m pe te nc y ex am in at io n

as al lo wed by se ct io n 42 41 (a). The co ur t gr an te d t h e m ot io n. Eva ns un de rwen t a

co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on , an d th e co ur t he ld a co m pe te nc y he ari ng

. At th e be gi nn in g

of th e co m

pe te nc y he ari ng , de fen se co un se l in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at Eva ns wis he d to

rep res en t hi m se lf at th e he ari ng

. The co ur t in fo rm ed Eva ns it ha d to pr oc eed wit h th e

co m pe te nc y he ari ng be fo re m ak in g a ru li ng on whe th er Ev a ns co ul d rep res en t

hi m se lf. At th e he ari ng , th e Gov ern m en t in tro du ced th e r e po rt of Dr. Ro n

Nieb erd in g, a li cen se d cl in ic al ps yc h ol og is t. Eva ns ’s co un se l st at ed th at Eva ns

di sp ut ed so m e of th e fact ua l fin di ng s in cl ud ed in th e rep or t an d al so be li ev ed cert ai n

rel ev an t in fo rm at io n was no t in cl ud ed in th e rep or t, bu t Eva ns st ip ul at ed th ro ug h

co un se l th at th e rep or t refl ect ed wha t Dr. Nieb erd in g’s te st im on y wo u l d be if he

te st ifi ed

. Dr. Nieb erd in g’s rep or t st at ed th at t he re was “ si gn ifi can t ev id en ce to

su gg e st th at [Eva ns ] m ay no t [h av e be en ] co m pe te nt to pr oc eed to a cri m in al

ad jud ic at io n” at th at ti m e. Eva ns di d no t of fer an y ev i d e n c e a t t h e he ari ng

. At th e

cl os e o f th e h eari ng , Evan s s po ke on hi s o wn b eh al f an d s ta te d t ha t h e d id no t wish

to rep res en t hi m se lf bu t in st ead req ue st ed ne w co un se l be cau se he di d no t be li ev e hi s

co un se l ha d ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ne d th e co m pe te nc y -rev ie w pr oc es s to hi m

. Eva ns al so

to ld th e c ou rt th at th ere was ad di ti on al ev id en ce th at he wou ld ha ve li ke d to ha ve gi ve n to Dr. Nieb erd in g, bu t th e do ct or “ se em ed ve ry rel uc ta nt ” to en te rta in it

. Eva ns

di d no t id en ti fy wha t ev id en ce he wou ld ha ve ha d Dr. Nieb erd in g co ns id er. The co ur t

in fo rm ed Eva ns th at it w o ul d no t ru le on hi s req ue st fo r ne w co un se l be fo re fir st

m ak in g a co m

pe te nc y de te rm in at io n.

-3

-Afte r Eva ns ’s co m pe te nc y he ari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud g e i ss ue d a rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on , fin di ng th at Eva ns wa s i nc om pe te nt be cau se he was “ pr es en tl y

su ffer in g fro m

a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect ren de rin g h im un ab le [] to un de rs ta nd th e

na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es of th e pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m or pr op e r ly as si st in hi s

de fen se .” The m ag i s t r a t e jud ge reco m m en de d th at Eva ns be ho sp it al iz ed pu rs ua nt

to se ct io n 42 41 (d )(1 ) fo r a reas on ab le ti m e, no t to ex ceed fo ur m on th s, to de te rm in e

whe th er th ere was a su bs ta nt ia l pr ob ab il it y t h at Eva ns wou ld at ta in cap aci ty to

pr oc eed to tri al in th e fo res eeab le fu tu re. The m ag is tra te jud ge ba se d he r

reco m m en da ti on on Dr. Nieb e r d i n g ’s rep or t, no ti ng th at th e rep or t was th e on ly

ev id en ce i nt ro du ced at t he co m pe te nc y he ari ng

.

P r i or to th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on , Eva n s

fil ed m ul ti pl e pr o se m ot io ns in cl ud in g m ot io ns to su pp res s th e ps y ch ol og ic al

ev al ua ti on an d to ha ve it st ric ke n fro m th e reco rd

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Eva ns ’s

m ot io ns , an d it in st ru ct ed hi m th at al l fu tu re m ot io ns sh ou ld be fil ed by hi s co un se l.

The co u rt ad op te d th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on an d or de red th at Eva ns be

co m m it te d to th e cu st od y of t h e U n i te d St at es Att or ne y Gen eral fo r ho sp it al iz at io n

an d t r e a t ment pu rs ua nt to se ct io n 42 41 (d ) fo r a reas on ab le pe rio d of ti m e, no t to

ex ceed fo ur m o n t hs

, to de te rm in e whe th er th ere was a su bs ta nt ia l pr ob ab il it y th at

Ev a n s wou ld at ta in cap aci ty to st an d tri al wit hi n th e fo res eeab le fu tu re. Eva n s

ap pe al s t hi s or de r, arg ui ng th at he was de ni ed a le ga l an d c on st it ut io na ll y ad eq ua te

co m pe te nc y he ari ng

.

III.

Si nc e th e fil in g of Eva ns ’s ap pe al

, Eva ns ha s co m pl et ed h i s co m

m it m en t

pu rs ua nt to th e or ig in al or de r, an d th e di st ric t co ur t de te rmi n e d

, a f t e r a su bs eq ue nt

co m pe te nc y he ari ng , th at it was su bs ta nt ia ll y un li ke ly th at Eva ns wou ld be res to red

to co m pe te nc y to pr oc eed in th e cri m in al ad jud ic at io n in th e fo res eeab le fu tu re in th e

ab se nc e of an ti ps y ch ot ic m ed ic at i on

. Eva ns ha s fil ed a se pa rat e ap pe al fro m th at

-4

-or de r. Uni te d St at es v. Eva ns , No. 12 -2 49 8 (8 th Ci r. fil ed Ju ne 25

, 20 12 ); se e,

e.g .,Cro ok s v. Ly

nc h, 55 7 F.3 d 84 6, 84 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th is co ur t m ay ta ke
jud ic ia l no ti ce of ot he r jud ic ia l op i n i on s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al ); Co nf or ti v.

Uni te d St at es , 74 F

. 3 d 8 3 8

, 8 4 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ W e ha ve he ld th at fed eral co ur ts

m ay su a sp on te ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce of pr oc eed in gs i n ot he r co ur ts if th ey rel at e

di rect ly to t he m at te rs at i ss ue .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ).

Befo re ad dr es si ng Eva ns ’s arg um en t on ap pe al

, we m us t ad dr es s th e qu es ti on

of m oo tn es s be cau se “ ev ery f e d e ral ap pe ll at e co ur t ha s a sp eci al ob li ga ti on to

co ns id er it s o w n ju r i s d i ct io n,” Tho m as v. Bas ha m , 9 31 F.2 d 52 1, 52 2- 23 (8 th Ci r.

19 91 ), an d we ha ve n o ju r i s d ic ti on ov er ap pe al s th at are m oo t. See Mi nn

. Hum an e

So c’y v. Cl ark , 18 4 F .3d 79 5, 7 97 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

“ Mo ot ne ss oc cu rs whe n th e pa rti es ‘lack a le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in te re s t in th e

ou tc om e.’” Oli n W at er S e r v s

. v

. Mi dl an d Res earc h Lab s., In c., 77 4 F.2 d 30 3, 30 5
(8 th C i r

. 1 9 85 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A pa rty ha s a “ le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in te res t in th e

ou tc om e” whe n he ha s a “ pe rs on al st ak e” in th e di sp ut e. See And ers on v. CNH U.S.

Pen si on Pl an , 51 5 F.3 d 82 3, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e fin d th at Eva ns ret ai ns a le ga ll y

co gn iz ab le in te res t in th e ad eq ua cy of hi s fir st co m pe te nc y he ari ng be cau se a fin di ng

th at th e or ig in al he ari n g was in ad eq ua te wou ld affe ct Eva ns ’s cu rren t le ga l st at us

.

“ At an y ti m e be fo re se nt en ci ng , ei th er pa rty to a fed eral cri m in al pr os ecu ti on m ay fil e

a m ot io n fo r a he ari ng to de te rm in e th e m en ta l co m pe te nc y of th e de fen da nt .” Uni te d

St at es v. Mi ll ard -Gras sh or n, 60 3 F.3 d 49 2, 49 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Afte r a co m pe te nc y

he ari ng is co nd uc te d un de r se ct io n 42 41 (c), if th e co ur t fin ds “ by a pr ep on de ran ce of

th e ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt

. . . su ffer [s ] fro m a m en t a l d i s eas e or de fect [th at

ren de rs ] hi m m en ta ll y in co m pe te nt [,]

. . .th e co ur t sh al l co m m it th e de fen da nt to th e

cu st od y of th e Att or ne y Gen eral .” 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (d ). Afte r th at de te rm in at io n, th e

bu rd en of pr oo f ch an ge s, an d th e de fen da nt wil l on ly be al lo wed to be di sc ha rg ed an d

to pr oc eed to tri al if th e co ur t fin ds “b y a p r e p o n d eran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e

de fen da nt ha s reco ve red to su ch an ex te nt th at he is ab le to un de rs ta nd th e na tu re an d

-5

-co ns eq ue nc es of th e pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m an d to as si st pr op erl y in hi s de fen se .”

18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (e). Fo r th is reas on , th e co m pe te nc y de te rm in at io n m ad e pu rs ua nt

to Eva ns ’s or ig in al he ari ng m ay im pa ct al l su bs eq ue nt co m

pe te nc y de te rm in at io ns

. Thu s, Ev a n s h a s a pe rs on al st ak e, th at is a “ le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in te res t in th e

ou tc om e,” of th is ap pe al

, an d th e ap pe al is no t m oo t. See Oli n W at er Serv s., 77 4 F.2 d

at 30 5.

IV.

Mo vi ng to th e m eri ts of th e ap pe al

, Eva ns arg ue s “ th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t erre d
by fai li ng to pr ov id e hi m wit h a le ga l, co ns ti tu ti on al ly ad eq ua te co m pe te nc y he ari ng

un de r ti tl e 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (c).” “ ‘D eci si on s reg ard in g co m pe te nc y he a r i n g s are

fact ua l fin di ng s th at we wil l affi rm un le ss cl earl y arb it rary or un warra nt ed

, or cl earl y

erro ne ou s.’” Uni te d St at es v. Mu el le r, 66 1 F.3 d 33 8, 35 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 19 51 (2 01 2)

. Eva ns arg ue s th at he ha d th e req ui si te

un de rs ta nd in g of ti m e, pl ac e , a nd ba si c kn owl ed ge to st an d tri al ; th at th e

ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on rel ie d on by t he co ur t di d no t di sc us s pr io r ev al ua ti on s of

Eva ns th at di sa gr eed wit h each o th er an d wit h th e co ur t; an d Dr. Nieb erd in g, on

who se rep or t th e co ur t rel ie d in de te rm in in g Eva ns was no t co m pe te nt to st an d tri al

,

was no t l ic en se d t o p ract ic e in th e St at e o f Mi ss ou ri a nd was n ot an ex pe rt.

Tho ug h Eva ns arg u e s t ha t he was co m pe te nt to st an d tri al

, Dr. Nieb erd in g’s

rep or t di rect ly co nt rad ic te d th at cl ai m , an d Dr. N i eb erd in g’s rep or t was th e on ly

ev id en ce in tro du ced at Eva ns ’s co m pe te nc y he ari ng

. Eva ns ar g u es th at Dr.

Nieb erd in g’s rep or t sh ou ld ha ve co ns id ered pr io r ev al ua ti on s of Eva ns ; ho wev er, Dr.

Nieb erd in g’s rep or t in di cat es th at N i eb erd in g co ns id ered se ve ral so ur ces of

in fo rm at io n in fo rm in g hi s reco m m en da ti on ab ou t Eva ns in cl ud in g: di sc us si on s wit h

Eva ns ’s co un se l, th e reco rd in th e cri m in al cas e, Eva ns ’s m ed ic al an d ad m in is tra ti ve

reco rd s fro m th e Bu reau of Pri so ns , be ha vi or al ob se rv at io ns , an d in te rv ie ws wit h

Eva ns , am on g ot he rs

. Eva ns ha s no t pr ov id ed an y ev id e n c e th at th es e pr io r

-6

-ev al ua ti on s ex is t or ev id en ce in di cat in g th ei r co nt en t, no r ha s he of fere d an y au th or it y

t o s up po rt hi s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d by acce pt in g th e

ps y ch ol og is t’s r e po rt be cau se it di d no t co ns id er al l pr io r ev al ua ti on s of th e

de fen da nt

. Tho ug h Eva ns ta ke s is su e wit h Dr. Nieb er d in g’s cert ifi cat io n, Dr.

Nieb erd in g’s rep or t in di cat ed th at he is a li cen se d cl in ic al ps y ch ol og is t, an d Eva ns

refe rs us to no th in g t ha t wo ul d c al l t hi s s ta te m en t i nt o q ue st io n.

Sect io n 42 41 (c) req ui res th at th e he ari ng on co m pe te nc y be co nduc te d pursu an t

to 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 7( d) . That pro vi si on st at es :

At a he ari ng or de red pu rs ua nt to th is ch ap te r th e pe rs on who se m en ta l

co nd it io n is th e su bjec t of th e he ari ng sh al l be r e p r e s e n t ed by co un se l

an d, if he is fin an ci al ly un ab le to ob ta in ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti on , co unse l
sh al l be ap po in te d fo r hi m pu rs ua nt to se ct io n 30 06 A. The pe rs on sh al l
be affo rd ed an op po rtu ni ty t o te st ify, t o pr es en t ev id en ce, to su bp oe na wit ne ss es on hi s be ha lf, an d to co nf ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e wi t n e s se s who ap pe ar at th e h eari ng

.

18 U.S.C. § 42 47 (d ). The he ari n g h e l d b y th e co ur t co m pl ie d wit h th es e

req ui rem en ts : Eva ns was rep res en te d at th e co m pe te nc y he ari ng by a fed eral pu bl ic

de fen de r; th e co ur t as ke d Eva ns whe th er he wou ld li ke to pr es en t an y ev id en ce, an d

Eva ns , th ro ug h hi s co un s e l

, d e cl in ed ; an d Eva ns was al lo wed to ad dr es s th e co ur t

pe rs on al ly. Eva ns ha s no t sh own th at th e co ur t erre d in cred it in g th e rep or t of Dr.

Nieb erd in g, pa rti cu la rly whe n th at rep or t was th e on ly ev id en ce be fo re th e co ur t

reg ard in g Ev an s’s co m

pe te nc y

.

Bec au se Eva ns ’s on ly arg um en t on ap pe al is th at th e he ari ng was in ad eq ua te

, hi s ap pe al is wit ho ut m eri t. To th e ex te nt th at Eva ns arg ue s hi s co un se l was

in effe ct iv e, “ ‘[c] la im s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l no rm al ly are rai se d fo r th e

fir st ti m e in co ll at eral pr oc eed in gs un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 ’” rat he r th an on di rect

-7

-ap pe al

. Uni te d St at es v. Dub r a y, 7 2 7 F .2d 77 1, 77 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (p er cu ria m )

(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. V.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-