Opinion ID: 795361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: District Court proceedings after Michael's PCRA litigation

Text: 18
19 Though the District Court stayed federal litigation pending the outcome of the PCRA proceedings, Michael wrote to the Court on three occasions (April 15, 1997; July 9, 1997; and December 26, 2000) to express his wish that the Court refrain from staying his execution. 20 In September 2001, the Court ruled that the presumption of correctness ordinarily attaching to state-court competency determinations 3 should not be applied because the PCRA court's competency determination was not reviewed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The District Court accordingly appointed Dr. Robert Wettstein, a board-certified psychiatrist and clinical professor, to determine `(1) whether Mr. Michael suffer[ed] from a mental disease, disorder or defect; (2) whether a mental disease, disorder or defect prevent[ed][him] from understanding his legal position and the options available to him; and (3) whether a mental disease, disorder or defect prevent[ed][him] from making a rational choice among his options.' Michael, 2004 WL 438678, at . Accord Hauser v. Moore, 223 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir.2000) ( per curiam ). The Court also requested that Dr. Wettstein consider whether Michael had sufficient ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and the ability to understand legal proceedings. 21 In June 2001, though the competency issues had not been resolved, the Defender Association filed a 146-page habeas petition. 4 In May 2002, Dr. Wettstein submitted his report, which was based on his review of the PCRA record, York County Prison records, state prison records, Michael's letters to the District Court, Michael's school records, an affidavit from Michael's sister, transcripts of an interview with Michael's brother, reports prepared by doctors who had testified at Michael's PCRA hearings, results of tests that Dr. Wettstein had personally administered, and eight hours of interviews with Michael. In the report Dr. Wettstein concluded, with reasonable psychiatric certainty, that Michael (1) was not suffering from any mental disease, disorder, or defect that substantially and adversely affected his ability to make a decision with regard to pursuing his appeals and (2) had the ability to understand the legal proceedings and to consult with his attorneys with a reasonable degree of understanding. Michael, 2004 WL 438678, at . 22 In July 2002, the District Court appointed Joseph Cosgrove, Esq., to represent Michael, and it scheduled an evidentiary hearing on Dr. Wettstein's report. At the September 2002 hearing, the Court's colloquy with Michael revealed—in the words of the District Court—a rational understanding of each inquiry and his desire to terminate the proceeding. Id. at . 23
24 The District Court relied heavily on Dr. Wettstein's report. Id. at  (Dr. Wettstein's report and testimony afford an ample foundation for a conclusion that Mr. Michael `has the capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation . . . .' (omission in original)); see also id. at -16 (discussing Dr. Wettstein's report and conclusions). The Court accepted Dr. Wettstein's conclusions and went on to find that Michael's decisions were knowing, rational and voluntary. Id. at . It explained that Michael's decision to end his legal proceedings had been consistently repeated to this Court over a number of years. It is thus not the product of uncontrollable impulsivity. Id. 25 On March 10, 2004, the Court dismissed Michael's habeas petition and dismissed all of Michael's counsel, including the Defender Association and Cosgrove. Id. at .