Opinion ID: 516973
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Likelihood of Recovery

Text: 26 At the August 26 hearing, Judge Evans asked the Government to have the defendant examined in an attempt to refute the expert evidence provided by the psychiatric reports. In making this request, the court told the Government: 27 The question then is what is accomplished by committing a defendant in this situation to a federal facility to be examined for a four month period. If the Government had one iota of evidence here to convince me that treating him for four months or such a period of time, ... has a chance of changing the situation, I would commit him. Additionally, the court stated: 28 ... but if you come in here with any evidence that, any credible evidence that I find believable that there is a likelihood that he will improve as a result of a commitment to a federal facility here, I will grant the request and so commit him. 29 (R. 39, Tr. at 14-15). 30 Thus, the court effectively placed the burden on the Government to show that Shawar would improve with hospitalization. Since there was no evidence that the defendant ever would recover, the district judge not only refused to commit Shawar, but also dismissed the Government's case against him. Along these lines, Shawar argues in his brief that since a finding already was made that he was incompetent and would not recover, the purpose of the statute already was fulfilled, and thus it was not necessary to commit him. 31 However well-intentioned Judge Evans' decision was, it misconceives, we believe, the statutory scheme envisioned by Congress. Our reading of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241(d) is not only that commitment is mandatory, but also that likelihood of recovery is not something to be considered by the district court in deciding whether to commit the defendant for the evaluation period. 7 It is during the evaluation period that the Attorney General has up to four months to assess whether the defendant will regain competency to stand trial. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241(d). In other words, the burden is ultimately on the Government to come forward with evidence on the likelihood of the defendant's recovery. The statute makes it clear, however, that once a defendant is found incompetent, the Government is entitled to an in-depth evaluation of him, in order to determine whether he is likely to recover. 32 As the Government points out in its brief, an in-depth evaluation of Shawar may be beneficial, given that the examinations of him were relatively brief and possibly hindered by cultural and language differences. Moreover, not to commit Shawar, and to dismiss the case against him, would be to remove him from the system entirely. Thus, he might never receive proper mental care, whether at the hands of the federal government or of the state of Wisconsin.