Opinion ID: 2857270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Declining to Order Competency Evaluation Was

Text: Not an Abuse of Discretion A district court is required to order a hearing to determine a defendant’s mental competency in limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). These circumstances exist when the court has “reasonable cause to believe” the defendant may be suffering from a mental disease or defect that either prevents her from understanding the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her, or renders her unable to assist in her defense. See id.; United States v. Grimes, 173 2DeSalvo initially challenged his conviction, but has withdrawn his appeal. Nos. 14-1206 & 13-3844 7 F.3d 634, 635–36 (7th Cir. 1999). “Because the district court is in the best position to assess the mental status of a defendant,” we review this determination for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jonassen, 759 F.3d 653, 659 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Alden, 527 F.3d 653, 659 (7th Cir. 2008)). Although it is uncontested that Anzaldi has no history of mental illness, she contends there was evidence before the district court that she was suffering from delusions, paranoia, or some other mental defect. She points to statements by the government that Anzaldi’s pro se pre-trial motions espoused “nonsensical” legal theories, as well as its requests that the district court evaluate Anzaldi’s competency. She also refers to statements made by her standby counsel at sentencing explaining that he had looked up Anzaldi’s behavior in the Journal of Psychiatric Diseases and concluded she was “delusional about [her] OID scheme and … what she did.” Anzaldi contends that based on this evidence, the district court was required to order a competency hearing sua sponte under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). We disagree that the district court had reasonable cause to believe Anzaldi may have been suffering from a mental disease or defect preventing her from understanding the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her, or rendering her unable to assist in her defense. Virtually all of the purported evidence of mental illness put forward stems from Anzaldi’s decision to pursue a sovereign citizen-type legal defense. Anzaldi’s frivolous pre-trial motions, for example, were based on boilerplate legal templates made available online by sovereign citizen groups. Likewise, standby counsel’s suggestion at sentencing that Anzaldi was “delusional” directly referred to her dogged adherence to 8 Nos. 14-1206 & 13-3844 the redemption theory and her pursuit of a sovereign citizen-type legal defense strategy. But as we have held, a defendant’s adherence to a discredited legal theory does not create “reasonable cause” to believe she suffers from a mental defect. See Jonassen, 759 F.3d at 660; Alden, 527 F.3d at 659–60; United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953, 955 (7th Cir. 2003). Our decision in Jonassen is squarely on point. There, the defendant, like Anzaldi, advanced a “sovereign-citizen defense,” electing to proceed pro se “to avoid losing the ability to assert that he was ‘a natural person, common law citizen’ over whom the court lacked jurisdiction.” 759 F.3d at 657, 660. We held that the pursuit of this theory did not require the district court to hold a competency examination, noting that “adherence to bizarre legal theories, whether they are sincerely held or advanced only to annoy the other side, does not imply mental instability or concrete intellect … so deficient that trial is impossible.” Id. at 660 (citing James, 328 F.3d at 955; Alden, 527 F.3d at 659–60). We reached a similar conclusion in James. The defendant there had “offered the ‘defense’ that his ancestors came from Africa, that he is therefore a Moorish national, and that as a result he need obey only those laws mentioned in an ancient treaty between the United States and Morocco.” 328 F.3d at 954. Again, we held that the defendant’s reliance on this legal theory did not require the district court to hold a competency hearing under § 4241, noting that many litigants “articulate beliefs that have no legal support,” but that this did not equate to mental incompetence or demand that a competency hearing be ordered. Id. at 955. We also explained that while “[o]ne person with a fantastic view may be suspected Nos. 14-1206 & 13-3844 9 of delusions; two people with the identical view are just oddballs.” Id. at 956. Despite Anzaldi’s suggestion to the contrary, the record clearly demonstrates she understood the charges against her and assisted in her defense—the key considerations under § 4241. See Alden, 527 F.3d at 659. Each time the government requested a hearing to determine whether Anzaldi was competent, Anzaldi objected, telling the district court at one point that “there would be no reason that I would be incompetent or considered that. I’m quite capable.” Standby counsel also objected to the government’s request for a competency hearing, stating, “I would object to that at this point, too. My discussion with her yesterday was very cordial and informative.” Standby counsel also told the district court that Anzaldi understood “the peril of going ahead by herself.” In deciding not to order a competency examination, the district court was entitled to consider the statements made by both Anzaldi and standby counsel affirming Anzaldi’s ability to understand the charges against her and to assist in her defense. See United States v. Savage, 505 F.3d 754, 760 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Significant weight is given to counsel’s representations concerning his client’s competence and counsel’s failure to raise the competency issue.”); United States v. Morgano, 39 F.3d 1358, 1374–75 (7th Cir. 1994) (district court entitled to rely on statements made by pro se defendant and his standby counsel to support finding no reasonable cause existed to believe defendant was mentally incompetent). The record also shows Anzaldi actively participated in her defense at trial. She gave an opening statement, crossexamined witnesses, offered exhibits to rebut the govern10 Nos. 14-1206 & 13-3844 ment’s case, and consulted with standby counsel. Such meaningful participation in the judicial process indicates that she was competent to assist in her defense. See United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 385, 389 (7th Cir. 2009) (pro se defendant’s performance—lodging objections, cross-examining witnesses, and making opening and closing statements— demonstrated mental competence). Anzaldi also advanced nuanced legal arguments, attempting to negate an essential element of her crime by submitting to the jury that she had acted in good faith. She maintained, for example, that she had diligently researched the tax positions she had taken and concluded they were legitimate, and that she asked the IRS for guidance to the extent these tax positions were erroneous. This sort of argumentation reflected an in-depth understanding of the charges against her, and also justified the district court’s conclusion that a competency hearing was not required. See Alden, 527 F.3d at 659. The district court was also entitled to rely on all of its informal observations of Anzaldi over the course of two years, during which time Anzaldi exhibited no behaviors suggestive of mental illness. See United States v. Weathington, 507 F.3d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding district court entitled to “determine informally whether reasonable cause exists by observing the defendant’s demeanor and assessing his statements during … interactions with the court.”); Grimes, 173 F.3d at 636; cf. United States v. Auen, 846 F.2d 872, 874–76 (2d Cir. 1988) (remanding case for competency examination where defendant made multiple threats and affirmatively represented that “he did not ‘understand’” why he was being detained); United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2010) (remanding case for competency examination where defendant had been previously diagnosed with paranoid Nos. 14-1206 & 13-3844 11 schizophrenia). The district court also could have considered the level of sophistication required to commit the crimes of which Anzaldi was convicted. Evidence showed Anzaldi filed numerous false tax returns seeking millions of dollars in fraudulent refunds, convinced several individuals to adopt her fraudulent tax strategy, and took various steps to conceal her crimes. See United States v. Abdulmutallab, 739 F.3d 891, 902 (6th Cir. 2014) (rejecting need for competency hearing based on complex nature of crimes at issue). Anzaldi further suggests that even if she were competent to stand trial, she was not competent to do so pro se. This argument is without merit. The Constitution does not create two standards for competence—one for standing trial and the other for self-representation. In Indiana vs. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), upon which Anzaldi relies, the Supreme Court held simply that “the Constitution permits States to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial … but who still suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.” 554 U.S. at 178 (emphasis added). But as we have noted, Edwards addresses “what the Constitution permits—limitation of the selfrepresentation right in connection with pleading guilty and presenting a trial defense, respectively—not what it mandates.” United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 385, 391 (7th Cir. 2009). As a result, Edwards simply means that “the Constitution may have allowed the trial judge to block [Anzaldi’s] request to go it alone, but it certainly didn’t require it.” See id. (citation omitted). In other words, even if the district court had doubts about Anzaldi’s abilities, nothing required the court to prohibit her from proceeding pro se once she understood the charges against her and was able to assist in 12 Nos. 14-1206 & 13-3844 her defense. Moreover, even if Edwards requires district courts to appoint “counsel in certain cases—a dubious reading—the rule would only apply when the defendant is suffering from a ‘severe mental illness.’” Id. And there is no evidence Anzaldi was suffering from a severe mental illness. Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order Anzaldi to undergo a competency examination.