Opinion ID: 3152017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Testify During Competency Hearing

Text: We review “de novo a defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to testify.” United States v. Gillenwater, 717 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2013). “[A] defendant in a criminal case has the right to take the witness stand and to testify in his or her own defense.” Id. at 1077 (internal quotation marks omitted). The same right applies in a competency hearing, a “critical stage” in the adversarial process. Id. at 1077 n.5. A defendant’s right to testify is personal and therefore may be relinquished only by the defendant. Id. at 1079. Additionally, the “relinquishment of the right [to testify] must be knowing and intentional.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]aiver of the right to testify may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct and is presumed from the defendant’s failure to testify or notify the court of his desire to do so.” United States v. Joelson, 7 F.3d 174, 177 (9th Cir. 1993). The appellant argues that his right to testify during his competency proceeding was violated when the court did not allow him to speak during the July 23, 2014 hearing after supplemental briefing. We disagree. The July 23 hearing after supplemental briefing must be viewed in context of the twoday evidentiary hearing which preceded it on April 10 and 11, 2014. On both days of this earlier hearing, Kowalczyk was an active participant in the calling and examining of witnesses and had ample opportunity to testify himself. In Gillenwater, our court found that the district court had denied the defendant’s right to testify. 717 F.3d at 1073–75. The defendant had expressed his desire to testify during his competency hearing, against the advice of his attorney. Id. UNITED STATES V. KOWALCZYK 23 This led to the defendant’s disruptive outburst, removal from the courtroom by the court, and denial of the defendant’s right to testify. Id. On appeal, our court vacated and remanded for a new competency hearing based on the district court’s denial of the defendant’s right to testify. Id. at 1085. Unlike the defendant in Gillenwater, Kowalczyk actively participated in his competency hearing as a pro se defendant and was given the opportunity to testify. On April 10, 2014, the first day of the evidentiary hearing, Kowalczyk crossexamined the government’s witness. At the conclusion of the first day, the court asked all parties what evidence they wanted to present the next day. At that time, Kowalczyk and amicus counsel Reid named witnesses to be called the next day, but neither asked to call Kowalczyk to testify. On April 11, 2014 Kowalczyk dismissed his two witnesses without questioning but cross-examined witnesses called by Reid. Initially, the court denied Kowalczyk’s request to speak during the July 23 hearing. However, the record is not clear that Kowalczyk was requesting to testify. Instead, he may have been asking to argue, as other counsel had been permitted to do. The record does show that the time to provide testimony had passed. The court had concluded the taking of evidence in the case on April 11 and called for supplemental briefing to focus on key legal issues in another hearing. Thus, we cannot agree with Kowalczyk that he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his competency hearings. Nor do we believe the court abused its discretion by initially refusing Kowalczyk’s request to speak during the July 23 hearing. As the court in Gillenwater noted, “[N]othing in our decision prevents the district court from 24 UNITED STATES V. KOWALCZYK exercising discretion to limit testimony, focus the scope of the proceeding, or exclude irrelevant testimony.” Id. at 1079. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the July hearing, Kowalczyk was given the opportunity to tell the court of his wish not to return to FMC Springfield. Moreover, the district court ultimately decided the competency proceedings in Kowalczyk’s favor by finding him incompetent and ordering that he be committed to another medical center. Thus, any potential abuse of discretion, in not allowing Kowalczyk to speak at the July 23 hearing on supplemental briefing, was harmless. III. No Clear Procedural Violations Under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 Kowalczyk argues that the district court violated the proper process for competency proceedings laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 4241, when, after finding Kowalczyk incompetent for the first time and referring him for treatment, the district court held a second competency hearing and ordered him committed and treated a second time. We disagree. Section 4241 is “a comprehensive provision detailing the standards and procedures for finding an individual mentally incompetent.” United States v. White, 887 F.2d 705, 707 (6th Cir. 1989). The Sixth Circuit has found that § 4241 “in no way limits the court to a single inquiry into a defendant’s competency.” Id. at 709. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, the issue of a defendant’s competency “can hardly be considered final when the very objective of competency determinations is to discover whether or when a defendant will be competent to stand trial.” United States v. Sherman, 912 F.2d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 1990). UNITED STATES V. KOWALCZYK 25 Because multiple competency evaluations and determinations are permitted by § 4241, there is no process error that would invalidate Kowalczyk’s commitment order. IV. Remand to the Same District Court Judge Kowalczyk argues that reassignment to a different district court judge is necessary. In deciding whether remand to a new judge is appropriate, this court considers: (1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness. United States v. Atondo-Santos, 385 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2004). Kowalczyk argues, relying on the second factor, that remand to the same judge would lead to the appearance of unfairness. We disagree. We reserve reassignment for “rare and extraordinary circumstances,” Krechman v. Cnty. of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2013), which we find absent in this instance. The district court judge has taken extraordinary measures across the lengthy duration of this case to treat Kowalczyk fairly. In deciding Kowalczyk’s competency to stand trial, for example, the district court judge took into 26 UNITED STATES V. KOWALCZYK careful consideration Kowalczyk’s own and the government’s psychological reports. Based on this evidence—and despite the district court’s concerns that Kowalczyk was malingering—the judge ultimately found Kowalczyk incompetent to stand trial and ordered him transferred to FMC Springfield. Considerations of judicial efficiency further counsel against reassignment. Given the lengthy procedural history of this case, remanding the case to a different judge would entail waste and duplication disproportionate to any appearance of unfairness that may exist in this case. Indeed, the record does not indicate that this case constitutes one of those “rare occasions [where] . . ., both for the judge’s sake and the appearance of justice,” assignment to a different judge is warranted. United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir. 1986). We see no reason here to reassign this case to a different district court judge on remand.