Opinion ID: 791813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural history and psychological treatment

Text: 7 On January 31, 1992, two weeks after his admission to the Stephenson County Jail, Burt was seen by a Dr. Modir, who prescribed the antidepressant doxepin 1 (brand name Sinequan). Shortly thereafter Burt, Booth, and Craig were all indicted for two counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, home invasion, armed violence, and theft. After his indictment Burt was transferred to Stateville Penitentiary and continued to take Sinequan. In April 1992 Burt had his first of many appointments with Dr. Edward Navakas, a psychiatrist at Stateville. Dr. Navakas continued Burt's prescription for Sinequan and also added a new prescription for an anti-anxiety medication, diazepam 2 (brand name Valium). In May 1992 Dr. Navakas prescribed another antidepressant, imipramine 3 (brand name Tofranil), and doubled Burt's dosage of Valium. 8 The Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit appointed two attorneys, Thomas Nettles and John Vogt, to represent Burt. Neither Nettles nor Vogt had any experience defending a capital case and each moved to withdraw. The court denied their motions. Nettles and Vogt then requested an examination to determine if Burt was competent to stand trial. In July 1992, approximately eight months before trial, Burt was examined by Dr. Donald Pearson, a psychologist. On the day of the evaluation prison officials refused to dispense his medications because, in Burt's words, they did not want him doped up for the examination. Dr. Pearson opined that Burt was competent to stand trial despite suffering from antisocial personality disorder, substance abuse disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and borderline intelligence reflecting minor mental retardation. Dr. Pearson's report also noted that Burt was scared of imaginary snakes in his cell. Dr. Pearson mentioned that Burt reported taking Sinequan and Valium, but he made no further mention of Burt's medications and did not review Dr. Navakas's records. 9 Approximately two weeks after Burt was examined by Dr. Pearson, Dr. Navakas again changed Burt's medications when he discontinued Sinequan and increased the dosage of Tofranil. Three weeks later on August 18 Dr. Navakas prescribed a new anti-psychotic drug, thioridazine 4 (brand name Mellaril), and maintained Tofranil and Valium. On August 28 Dr. Navakas increased the dosages of both Mellaril and Tofranil, while continuing Valium at its previous level. Dr. Navakas also made a notation that he was discontinuing Sinequan, even though Burt was not then taking that drug. From August 1992 until February 1993 Burt continued to see Dr. Navakas, who continued to prescribe Mellaril, Tofranil, and Valium. Dr. Navakas's notes for September 16, 1992 show a new prescription for Sinequan, but his notes for Burt's next appointment on December 11, 1992 make no mention of that drug. 10 In November 1992 Burt was examined by another psychologist, Dr. Linda Wetzel, in connection with a defense motion to suppress his confessions. Dr. Wetzel calculated Burt's IQ as 79, placing him in the 9th percentile for his age group, and she diagnosed him as having a brain impairment of the frontal cerebral lobe that had been exacerbated by numerous childhood head injuries. She wrote: 11 His memory deteriorates to a retarded level after a delay of only 30 minutes. His mental flexibility is severely impaired and motor speed is moderately to severely impaired. Language abilities are spared which allows him to appear brighter than his actual borderline intelligence level. He is further handicapped by his severe depression which interferes with his ability to concentrate. 12 Dr. Wetzel concluded that Burt's condition resulted in poor impulse control, poor judgment, and inability to monitor and self-correct behavior. 13 Six weeks before trial on February 2, 1993 Burt told Dr. Navakas about a painful growth on the left side of his chest. Dr. Navakas determined that the growth was caused by the Mellaril, so he cut Burt's dosage in half, while maintaining him on the same doses of Tofranil and Valium. 14 Burt's trial began in mid-March 1993. During jury selection on March 19 Burt's attorneys requested a continuance. Nettles explained that Burt does not feel he is able to continue to assist us in the selection of jurors today. He added that Burt was having difficulty sleeping and feels that because of his inability to sleep and because of the medication that he would not be able to assist on today's date in selecting these jurors. The court denied a continuance but told Burt it would reconsider if I detect you're having trouble staying awake. On March 26, the fourth day of trial during the state's case-in-chief, Attorney Vogt announced that Burt wished to plead guilty. Vogt added that we've spoken ... with our client last night and I also spoke with him this morning for some time ... and we told him that we didn't think it was appropriate and would be against our advise [sic] to do that, but he insists on it with us and wants to do it. 15 The court admonished Burt of the consequences of pleading guilty, including that he would be eligible for the death penalty. The court also briefly inquired about Burt's mental condition: 16 THE COURT: Are you getting all the medication you're prescribed at this time? Are you getting it over at the jail? 17 DEFENDANT: Yes, I am. 18 THE COURT: You feel rested this morning? 19 DEFENDANT: I feel about the same. 20 THE COURT: About the same, but that was a problem the other morning, but I've watched. You've been alert, I think, through the trial. And you've discussed this with your attorneys have you not? 21 DEFENDANT: Yes. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Are you following their advice or do they disagree with you on that? 23 DEFENDANT: They disagree. 24 The court then cautioned Burt to consider his attorneys' advice. After Burt said he still wished to plead guilty, the court finished admonishing him of the consequences of his decision and then accepted the guilty plea. At a sentencing hearing begun later that day, the parties presented evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The jury on April 1 sentenced Burt to death. 25 Burt filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea in which he argued, among other things, that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made because his mental deficiencies and heavy medications rendered him incompetent at the time he changed his plea. The court denied that motion. Burt continued to take a variety of psychotropic medications throughout his post-trial proceedings. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed Burt's convictions on direct appeal, Burt I, 168 Ill.2d 49, 212 Ill.Dec. 893, 658 N.E.2d 375, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Burt v. Illinois, 517 U.S. 1211, 116 S.Ct. 1832, 134 L.Ed.2d 936 (1996). 26 Burt then filed a petition for state post-conviction relief, asserting in part that he was denied due process when the trial court failed to order a new competency hearing and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed to request one. Burt's petition was supported by, among other things, an affidavit from one of his trial attorneys and a report by Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a Board certified forensic psychiatrist who reviewed Burt's medical history. Attorney Nettles's affidavit stated he was aware that Burt was taking psychotropic medication throughout Burt's pre-trial incarceration. It also stated that Burt exhibited frequent swings of mood and often demonstrated belligerent or explosive behavior in his presence. Nettles further stated that Burt threatened to become violent in the courtroom on multiple occasions and once threatened to attack him. Nettles believed, Burt did not fully comprehend legal advice and that his behavior throughout the trial, particularly his decision to change his plea to guilty, was not rational. Finally, Burt insisted on changing his plea to guilty largely because he was not permitted to smoke in the Stephenson County Jail, and was anxious to return to prison where smoking was permitted. Dr. Rossiter's report stated that this defendant's history of head injury with probable brain damage renders him more susceptible to the adverse effects of psychotropic medication. Dr. Rossiter opined that Burt should have had a fitness hearing because he was taking powerful psychotropic medications at the time of his March 1993 trial, and he had a long history of psychiatric disorders and evidence of brain damage. 27 The circuit court dismissed Burt's post-conviction petition in December 1998. The Illinois Supreme Court, with two dissenting justices, affirmed. People v. Burt, 205 Ill.2d 28, 275 Ill.Dec. 477, 792 N.E.2d 1250 (Ill.2001) ( Burt II ). As relevant here, the majority held that Burt was not denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed to request a fitness hearing before the court accepted his guilty plea because he did not show a bona fide doubt as to his competency to plead guilty and thus could not establish that he was prejudiced by his attorneys' failure to request a new competency hearing. Id. at 1261. The court held that Burt's failure to establish a bona fide doubt as to his competency was likewise fatal to his due process claim. Id. at 1261-62. Chief Justice Harrison dissented, arguing that Burt's abrupt decision to plead guilty without seeking any concessions from the prosecution was an inherently irrational act because of his certain eligibility for the death penalty. Id. at 1264. The Chief Justice added that Burt's psychiatric history showed that [t]here can be no real doubt, however, that whatever decisionmaking sense [Burt] possessed abandoned him during the trial. Id. Justice Kilbride also dissented, noting that there is no explanation of why counsel could not or did not procure any concessions from the State in return for defendant's guilty plea, such as an agreement not to seek the death penalty. Id. at 1265. The United States Supreme Court again denied certiorari. Burt v. Illinois, 536 U.S. 925, 122 S.Ct. 2593, 153 L.Ed.2d 782 (2002). The Governor of Illinois eventually commuted Burt's sentence to life imprisonment as part of a blanket commutation of all Illinois death sentences. 28 Burt then petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, again asserting that he was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel. As relevant here, the district court found that the Illinois Supreme Court reasonably concluded that Burt's due process claim failed because he could not establish a bona fide doubt about his competency. The district court also found that the Illinois Supreme Court reasonably concluded that Burt could not establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to request a fitness hearing because he had not established a bona fide doubt about his competency to stand trial. We granted Burt a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether Burt was denied due process when the trial court failed to conduct a fitness hearing prior to accepting his guilty plea, and (2) whether his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a competency hearing either immediately before trial or before the court accepted Burt's change of plea.