Opinion ID: 172197
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facts

Text: The district judge appointed Dr. Samuel Roll, a forensic psychologist, to examine Mr. Lopez-Hodgson. Dr. Roll explained in a psychological report that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson understood the nature of the accusations against him and the possible penalties. R., Vol. I, Doc. 41, at 1 (Psychological Report by Samuel Roll, Ph.D., P.A.). He also understood that he had his own attorney, that the prosecutor would try to demonstrate his guilt, and that an impartial judge would be involved in the proceedings. Id. at 1–2. Dr. Roll opined that with certain significant limitations, Mr. Lopez-Hodgson was capable of informing his attorney about pertinent facts. Id. at 2. However, Dr. Roll concluded that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson was unable to meaningfully assist in his own defense. Id. He explained that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson suffered from mild mental retardation, and had impairments in his ability to think logically. Id. He further opined that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson suffered from “a blending of schizophrenic thought disorder with paranoid aspects.” Id. at 3. Mr. Lopez-Hodgson was later confined at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. While at that facility, Dr. Richard Frederick, a forensic psychologist, evaluated Mr. Lopez-Hodgson. Dr. Frederick prepared a written report 1 The Government’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Mootness) is denied. -2- and testified at the competency hearing. Dr. Frederick observed and communicated with Mr. Lopez-Hodgson, discussed his situation with other staff members, and enrolled him in a psycho-educational group. R., Vol. III, at 11 (Competency Hearing Transcript). Dr. Frederick also called Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s attorney and considered IQ scores from Dr. Roll’s report. Id. at 11, 37, 41 Dr. Frederick administered a test, the Validity Indicator Profile, and Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s performance was consistent with below average IQ–better than mental retardation. Id. at 14–15. However, Dr. Frederick did not administer a standardized IQ test on Mr. Lopez-Hodgson. Id. at 15. He did not think such a test would be useful because Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s behavior did not correlate with somebody who might have mental retardation. Id. at 16. Therefore, in his opinion, psychological testing was not the most useful way to evaluate Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s cognitive capacities. Id. Dr. Frederick explained that, while at the facility, Mr. Lopez-Hodgson went into great detail as to what he thought the sentencing Guidelines might be for him if he were to plead guilty or be found guilty. Id. at 24–25. When Dr. Frederick spoke to Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s attorney about the incident, the attorney said that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson had memorized the information. Id. at 25. In addition, Dr. Frederick testified that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson had been placed in a locked unit after disobeying a prison officer, but the officer did not give Mr. -3- Lopez-Hodgson an incident report within 24 hours. Id. at 26. For the incident report to be sustained, the officer was required to give Mr. Lopez-Hodgson an incident report within 24 hours. Id. Mr. Lopez-Hodgson asked to be let out of the locked unit because the incident report had not been delivered within 24 hours. Id. When questioned by Dr. Frederick, Mr. Lopez-Hodgson said that he read about the policy in the inmate handbook when he arrived at the prison. Id. at 26–27. He had arrived two months earlier. Id. at 27. Dr. Frederick further testified that when he would not grant Mr. LopezHodgson’s request to move to a different unit at the facility, Mr. Lopez-Hodgson approached the administrative staff and asked to go to a different unit. Id. at 28. Dr. Frederick testified that the manner in which he evaluated Mr. LopezHodgson–the tests he chose to administer and observation–was the standard way to evaluate a patient in a psychiatric hospital. Id. at 19–20. Dr. Frederick testified that he did not think Mr. Lopez-Hodgson had any mental illness, and he was “very confident” that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson was competent to stand trial. Id. at 30–31. At the competency hearing, Mr. Lopez-Hodgson objected to Dr. Frederick’s testimony, arguing that his opinion was based solely on observation. Id. at 35. Mr. Lopez-Hodgson argued that objective tests and scientific methodology accepted by the scientific community must underlie the opinion. Id. at 35–36. The district judge overruled the objection and admitted Dr. Frederick’s testimony, explaining, id. at 36: I hold that the court’s obligation is as a gatekeeper, and I find that the -4- doctor has described facts and data, and the facts and data that are used by this witness are traditionally used by other witnesses of the same type and [in] similar circumstances. He has, to my opinion, applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts from the case. Mr. Lopez-Hodgson also provided the report and testimony of Dr. Susan Cave, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Cave found Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s IQ to be in the mental retardation range. R., Vol. I, Doc. 46, at 5 (Forensic Evaluation Report by Susan B. Cave, Ph.D.). She explained that she gave Mr. Lopez-Hodgson an IQ test, and he scored in the first percentile for intelligence. R., Vol. III, at 47 (Competency Hearing Transcript). In other words, ninety-nine percent of the people in his age group had a higher level of cognitive functioning. Id. Dr. Cave further indicated that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson knew what the charges were, knew he could plead guilty or not guilty, knew that a sentence would be served in prison, and knew that he would be released if found not guilty. Id. at 50–51. He defined “not guilty” as not having done anything wrong. Id. at 51. He also understood the role of his defense attorney and the role of the prosecutor, knew that the judge’s job was to sentence him, and knew that the witnesses were there to prove he did something wrong. Id. at 52. Dr. Cave also explained that Mr. Lopez-Hodgson would be able to recall and discuss what happened in his case, but would have trouble responding to rapid questioning. R., Vol. I, Doc. 46, at 7 (Forensic Evaluation Report by Susan B. Cave, Ph.D.). However, Mr. Lopez-Hodgson could not remember if he had entered a plea. R., Vol. III, at 53 (Competency Hearing -5- Transcript). Dr. Cave explained that her greatest concern about Mr. Lopez-Hodgson’s competency was his comprehension of what was being said while he was in court because of his weak vocabulary. Id. at 60. She was also concerned that he would just go along with whatever he was told to do, and that he would make decisions without fully understanding the implications for the future. Id. She asserted that she had seen retarded people that she thought were competent, but Mr. Lopez-Hodgson was not one of those people. Id. at 61. Dr. Cave further testified that observation alone is not an accepted scientific method of evaluation. Id. at 59. Following the testimony at the competency hearing, the district judge explained, id. at 71–72: I listened to Dr. Frederick carefully, and it is my experience in listening to and hearing the testimony of psychiatrists and psychologists who work at the medical center for federal prisoners, and the method that they use to evaluate and make determinations about competency, that this doctor did what they all do. He examined the individual by communicating, and if necessary, if tests were valuable, they would do that. In this case, according to Dr. Frederick, those kind of tests that were run by Dr. Cave were purposeless for this individual. And to observe how someone operates or conducts himself in the circumstances of the mental hospital is a traditional method of their evaluation. I’ve seen many reports and heard countless testimony about that method of evaluation, so to hear somebody come in here and say that’s not an accepted way to do it is just flat unbelievable. So I was very impressed with the testimony of Dr. Frederick, and it was done in accordance with the methods used in these matters in prison settings, and I conclude that the defendant is competent to stand trial. That doesn’t mean that he has the understanding that a lawyer might have of the facts and the issues, but that’s not required, and I’m -6- going to accept the testimony and evaluation by Dr. Frederick and find that the defendant is competent. The district judge then prepared an “Order of Competency.” Mr. Lopez- Hodgson entered into a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) in which he “reserve[d] the right to appeal the . . . Order of Competency.” He then pled guilty to reentry of a deported alien after a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326, and received a sentence of time served and two years of unsupervised release.