Opinion ID: 2786325
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clayton was Competent to Stand Trial

Text: The District Court also agreed with this Court’s conclusion that Clayton’s counsel had no reasonable basis to challenge Clayton’s competence to stand trial. Noting that, even though Clayton’s expert psychologist had not been retained specifically to evaluate his competence, Clayton’s expert testified that defense counsel had asked her to “let him know if there was a problem with Clayton’s competency.” Clayton III, 2006 WL 1128803, at . “Dr. Back stated that she believed in June 1997 that Clayton was competent to stand trial and that, had she thought otherwise, she would have told [defense counsel] he was not competent.” Id. Not only was counsel reasonable in relying on this expert, the District Court agreed with this Court’s holding that Clayton failed to show that he actually was 7 incompetent to be tried. Id. at . Clayton’s claim was based on the testimony of Dr. Foster, but the District Court held that the “Missouri courts’ decision to give no weight to Dr. Foster’s testimony is well supported by the evidence in the record[.]” Id. “Dr. Foster testified that Clayton understood the proceedings, the charges against him and that he faced the death penalty, that he had the right not to testify, and the role of different participants in the trial, including his attorneys, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury.” The District Court concluded that these concessions contradicted Dr. Foster’s assertion Clayton was not competent and justified this Court’s (and the post-conviction motion court’s) decisions not to give any weight to it. Id.