Opinion ID: 815387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maryea's Trial

Text: On December 30, 2010, Woods entered a plea agreement which the court accepted. Maryea's trial then commenced on January 4, 2011. After the fourth day of trial, Maryea was injured in a car accident while being transported from the courthouse to the jail. She moved to continue the trial and filed a motion for a mistrial, which was later withdrawn. The district court granted the continuance and held two subsequent status conferences to consider Maryea's complaints of pain and her treatment in the prison. The district court also ordered an independent medical evaluation to (1) evaluate and diagnose any injuries Maryea may have sustained in the car accident; and (2) determine whether the continuing effects of those injuries, if any, will prevent her from meaningfully participating in the ongoing criminal trial and -10- assisting in her defense, including observing the evidence and communicating with her counsel. Following an examination, the examining doctor concluded that Maryea had suffered a pinched nerve in her neck, and the district court ordered that an MRI be performed on her neck based on the report's recommendation. In a series of hearings following the accident, the district court monitored Maryea's status and, following the withdrawal of Maryea's oral motion for a mistrial, scheduled the trial to reconvene on January 24, 2011. Upon the recommencement of her trial, Maryea said that she was experiencing breakthrough pain, although she also told the district court that the pain was not impairing [her] ability to pay attention or to sit here as of right now. The court notified her that if her pain reached a point where it interferes with your ability to participate meaningfully in your defense and consult with counsel and the like, I'm sure you're going to let us know. Maryea confirmed that she would. On January 25, 2011, defense counsel informed the court that Maryea was crying and hysterical after not receiving her medication prior to being transported to the courthouse. According to defense counsel, when he asked her to discuss witness strategy, she said, I don't care. . . . [d]o whatever you want, I can't do this anymore. On this basis, counsel informed the court that he could not effectively communicate with his client. The court -11- ordered a recess to allow Maryea's medication to take effect, and then held a status conference on the issue of Maryea's competency. Defense counsel stated at that conference that he had reservations regarding Maryea's competency, and the court engaged in a colloquy with Maryea in which she stated on the record that her mood was stable, that she could assist her counsel, and that she wished to forge [ahead] with this trial. When the district judge asked her if she understood what he was saying, she responded, Absolutely. I can understand. I'm coherent. I can comprehend. After noting that Maryea had been previously found competent to stand trial, had been assisting and continued to assist her lawyer with her defense, and appeared capable of having a conversation with the court, the district judge stated that she was quite clearly an adult intelligent person who is able to understand me and able to make me understand her. As such, the district judge concluded that she fit the definition of a competent defendant and accordingly allowed the trial to continue. Evidence closed on January 27, 2011, and Maryea filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the government's evidence proved two distinct conspiracies rather than one overarching conspiracy, and that the government had not produced sufficient evidence linking her to the conspiracy charged in the Superseding Indictment. The district court denied Maryea's motion, stating that, when viewing -12- the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution . . . , it seems to me that . . . the jury certainly could infer that . . . the conspirators who did tie this entire course of conduct together, even if it does amount to more than one conspiracy if broken down, into a single conspiracy, was Lynette Maryea and Troy Muder. So for the reasons . . . stated by the U.S. Attorney in his objection, I have to deny the motion for Rule 29. The district court charged the jury, and the jury sent a note to the court during its deliberations asking, Which indictment are we supposed to refer to? Jury instructions are unclear. The court instructed the jury to deliberate and return a verdict on the Superseding Indictment. The jury then returned a guilty verdict, and the district court entered judgment on October 19, 2011. This timely appeal followed.