Source: https://uvamentalhealthpolicy.org/case-law/category/CST
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:38:13+00:00

Document:
Massachusetts Supreme Court interprets state statutory requirements for when criminal charges must be dismissed against a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial, and upholds the statutes against claims of Due Process and Equal Protection violations.
The Supreme Court of California found that the prosecution was permitted to dismiss prior charges and refile identical charges where the defendant had been committed for the duration of the statutory period while being evaluated for competence to stand trial; provided, however, that if found still incompetent to stand trial, the defendant could not be re-committed for another statutory period.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a juvenile charged with murder under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act whose competency to stand trial is in doubt must be committed under the juvenile provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e) and not the provisions related generally to all commitments under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Tribal authorities with the Tohono O’odham nation charged 17-year old LKAV with murder in May 2009. He was found incompetent and remained in tribal custody but without being sent to a treatment facility for restoration to competency. In November 2011, the United States filed its own charge against LKAV as an alleged juvenile delinquent under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. The United States then obtained a writ of habeas corpus to remove him from tribal custody and moved to commit him for a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to the provision pertaining in general to all federal criminal cases under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). The presiding magistrate judge granted LKAV’s request for a local evaluation in Phoenix, Arizona.
After an extensive evaluation, the examining psychologist determined LKAV was incompetent to stand trial. LKAV then moved to proceed with commitment under the juvenile act. The United States maintained that LKAV should be committed to an adult facility under § 4241(d). The magistrate judge granted the United States’ motion and committed LKAV to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization for a period not to exceed four months to determine whether he could be restored to competency. LKAC filed a timely appeal, but in the interim was transported to the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina. FMC-Butner completed its competency evaluation in January 2013 and advised the court that with an additional period of hospitalization and treatment, LKAV could be restored to competency. It requested an additional 120-day extension of the commitment order, which the district court granted. LKAV appealed.
The Ninth Circuit heard LKAV’s appeal under the collateral order doctrine finding that the commitment order conclusively determines LKAV’s rights as to his pre-adjudication commitment; his commitment is a completely separate issue from the ultimate issue of his delinquency; and delay until a final decision of his delinquency on the merits would render the commitment order effectively unreviewable.
By contrast, the commitment scheme generally applicable to all defendants contained in § 4241(d) requires mandatory commitment for determination of the defendant’s potential for restoration to competency. The United States had argued that § 5037(e) does not mention competency and therefore the mandatory competency evaluation and commitment procedures in § 4241(d), which are more explicit and comprehensive and apply to all federal criminal proceedings applies.
The Court found that because § 5037(e) expressly provides for commitment, study, and observation of alleged juvenile delinquents, and specifically references a study of any mental or physical defect, it controls over conflicting provisions in § 4241(d) that apply to federal criminal defendants generally. The Court pointed out, however, that the United States could have sought to have LKAV transferred for trial as an adult and therefore all of the provisions in § 4241(d) would have applied, but for some reason chose not to do so. The Court recognized that because LKAV has now turned 21 and is no longer a juvenile, his further treatment and custody may cause the United States some incidental inconvenience because he cannot be housed with other juveniles or adults. Nonetheless the Court held that the purpose of Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act is to provide for the preferential and protective care and treatment of juvenile delinquents who are significantly different from adult offenders, and its provisions must therefore control.
Cruz was arrested and convicted on two counts of threatening a federal law enforcement officer. After the court received the pre-sentence investigation report, the prosecution successfully moved for a determination of competency. A Federal Bureau of Prisons forensic psychologist concluded that Cruz was mentally incompetent and suffered from schizophrenic disorder, bipolar type. After a hearing, the court concluded that Cruz was incompetent and found that he could not proceed with sentencing.
A second report concurred with the diagnosis, noted Cruz’s ongoing refusal to take antipsychotic medication recommended by BOP personnel, concluded that without medication Cruz would remain incompetent, and stated that “there is a substantial probability that [his] competency can be restored with a period of forced medication.” The prosecution obtained an order authorizing the BOP to medicate Cruz against his will.
On appeal, the issue was whether “the Government, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003), can have a sufficiently important interest in forcibly medicating a defendant to restore his mental competency and render him fit to proceed with sentencing.” In affirming the decision of the federal district court, the Third Circuit held that the government could have a sufficiently important interest in sentencing a defendant for serious crimes to justify involuntary medication. Relying on the stated concern in Sell that “memories may fade or evidence may be lost,” the Third Circuit held the same concern applies with equal force in the sentencing context (the guilt phase was at issue in Sell) because it means that it may be “difficult or impossible to sentence a defendant who regains competence after years of commitment.” Additionally, while it may be cognizable that some crimes are not “serious” enough to justify forcible medication at the sentencing stage, Cruz’s offense was certainly “serious” enough.
The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in January 2015.
The Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the Court of Appeals’ denial of Dang’s petition. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court had given adequate weight to the new information acquired by defense counsel and had focused on the proper issue at hand— Dang’s “present ability to understand the proceedings and assist his counsel.” Given the first evaluator’s opinion that Dang’s shifting focus was representative of “situational anxiety” and the “wide latitude” offered to circuit courts in light of their “first-hand interactions with, and observations of, the defendant and the attorneys at bar” the Supreme Court of Virginia found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a second evaluation.
The Seventh Circuit held that the trial court and state supreme court failed to follow the due process competence to stand trial standard set out in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) and Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). During the trial, McManus suffered several panic attacks and had to be transported to the emergency room where he was treated with several psychotropic drugs, including both opioid painkillers and ones that affected memory. The Seventh Circuit held that the “powerful effect of the medications alone created substantial doubt about McManus’ mental fitness for trial” and faulted the state judge for not ordering a competency evaluation and instead focusing on “getting McManus ‘fixed-up’ enough to complete the trial.” This course of action violated not only the due process standard set out in Dusky but also the Indiana Code, which requires a trial court to appoint a team of medical experts with expertise in determining competency and to hold a hearing any time there are bona fide doubts about a defendant’s competency. See Ind. Code § 35-36-3-1. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus unless Indiana gave notice of its intent to retry McManus within a reasonable time.
Background: After Jesse James Warren was indicted on four counts of murder in connection with a mass shooting, he was found incompetent to stand trial and placed in the custody of the Department of Behavioral Health and Development Disabilities. The state of Georgia filed a petition under Sell to medicate Warren involuntarily in an attempt to restore his competency. The Superior Court for Cobb County granted the state’s motion and the defendant appealed.

References: § 5037
 § 4241
 § 4241
 § 4241
 § 4241
 § 5037
 § 4241
 § 5037
 § 4241
 § 4241
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 35