Opinion ID: 3019878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s dismissal of the habeas

Text: petition The District Court relied heavily on Dr. Wettstein’s report. Id. at  (“Dr. Wettstein’s report and testimony afford an ample foundation for a conclusion that Mr. Michael ‘has the capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation . . . .’” (omission in original)); see also id. at –16 (discussing Dr. Wettstein’s report and conclusions). The Court accepted Dr. Wettstein’s conclusions and went on to find that Michael’s decisions were “knowing, rational and voluntary.” Id. at . It explained that Michael’s decision to end his legal proceedings had been “consistently repeated to this Court over a number of years. It is thus not the product of uncontrollable impulsivity.” Id. On March 10, 2004, the Court dismissed Michael’s habeas petition and dismissed all of Michael’s counsel, including the Defender Association and Cosgrove. Id. at .