Opinion ID: 516973
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discretionary or Mandatory?

Text: 14 The issue for us to decide is how Sec. 4241(d) should be interpreted. There are two possible readings of this statute. The first would mandate, in any case where the court finds a defendant incompetent, that it commit him to the custody of the Attorney General. The second reading, the one adopted by Judge Evans, would require the court to commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for up to four months only if there is a probability that there will be a change in the defendant's mental condition. 15 Although the district judge obviously attempted to comply with what he felt to be the spirit of the statute, the statutory scheme established by Congress 2 clearly mandates that a defendant found to be incompetent be placed in a mental hospital for observation. Section 4241(d) of Title 18 reads: 16 (d) Determination and disposition. If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment in a suitable facility-- 17 (1) for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed; and 18 (2) for an additional reasonable period of time until-- 19 (A) his mental condition is so improved that trial may proceed, if the court finds that there is a substantial probability that within such additional period of time he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed; or 20 (B) the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law; 21 whichever is earlier. 22 If, at the end of the time period specified, it is determined that the defendant's mental condition has not so improved as to permit the trial to proceed, the defendant is subject to the provisions of section 4246 [18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246]. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241(d) (emphasis added). 3 23 Based on the expert opinions, Judge Evans was satisfied that Shawar would never be competent and that treatment would not improve his condition. Thus, he determined in his October 20 decision and order that it would be an empty exercise to commit Shawar to a federal facility for further testing, and read the statute to require that commitment only is mandatory if there is a possibility that the commitment will result in a change in the defendant's condition. 24 Although the position taken by Judge Evans was not unreasonable, the intent of Congress is clear. The statute plainly states that the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General [who] shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment.... 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241(d) (emphasis added). 4 The plain meaning of this phrase is, and we hold it to be, that once a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, a district judge has no discretion in whether or not to commit him. 25 The crucial distinction which Congress has made seems to be this. The district judge has the power, by means of the competency hearing, to determine which defendants are competent to stand trial. He retains full authority to deal with those defendants he deems competent to stand trial. On the other hand, Congress has given authority over defendants declared incompetent by the district judge to the Attorney General. 5 This division of authority permits the district judge to carry out traditional federal judicial functions, and insures that the procedures used to commit the incompetent defendant to the custody of the Attorney General will comport with due process, yet recognizes the limitations on the federal courts in the field of mental health. It does so by giving to the Attorney General the ability to seek treatment of incompetent defendants through appropriate state mental health procedures. 6 The statutory scheme also, as we will discuss below, gives the Attorney General the authority, if a defendant is found incompetent and committed to his custody, to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the defendant to assess the likelihood that he will regain competency and whether he is dangerous.