Opinion ID: 349533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal to Order a Second Competency Examination

Text: 43 As his final point of appeal, appellant Sansone argues that his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated when a post-trial competency examination was performed by a psychiatrist who was not  qualified, see 18 U.S.C. § 4244, since the psychiatrist spoke neither Italian nor French, Sansone's first two languages. 8 44 The record discloses that Judge Lasker ordered a competency examination shortly after receiving defense counsel's post-trial notice that there was a question whether Sansone had been competent to stand trial. Before the court-appointed psychiatrist had reported the results of his examination, Sansone's counsel made a second motion, on December 16, 1976, formally requesting the appointment of a French- or Italian-speaking psychiatrist. In support of this second motion, Sansone's counsel pointed out that the services of an interpreter had been necessary during trial and counsel had experienced difficulty communicating with Sansone. 45 On December 24, 1976, the court-appointed psychiatrist reported the results of his examination. He found that Sansone had been competent to stand trial inasmuch as his memory concerning recent and remote events appeared to be unimpaired. In addition, the psychiatrist strongly suspect(ed) that there may be volitional components through which Mr. Sansone attempts to make himself less understood than is necessary, and concluded that Sansone had an adequate knowledge and appreciation of the charges against him and was able to assist counsel in his own defense. At the sentencing, Judge Lasker formally denied Sansone's second motion on the ground that he found no basis for conducting another examination. 46 In essence, Sansone asserts that Judge Lasker abused his discretion in finding that Sansone was able to communicate effectively in English with the court-appointed psychiatrist. We find no abuse of discretion. 47 At the time of his ruling Judge Lasker had ample evidence demonstrating Sansone's ability to communicate effectively in English. During the trial the court heard a lengthy tape recording in which Sansone conversed in English and the court heard testimony that Sansone had had numerous conversations in English with agent Schnakenberg in which the two of them discussed detailed narcotics transactions. Judge Lasker also had before him the competency report which indicated that the psychiatrist had conducted an extensive interview of Sansone in English, from which the doctor was able to draw his professional conclusions. In light of these circumstances, we can only conclude that Judge Lasker acted well within his discretion in refusing to order a second examination. 48 Judgments affirmed.