Opinion ID: 2982297
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competency Challenge.

Text: On May 29, 2003, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury handed down a 338-count indictment against Halder that included charges for aggravated murder, felony murder, mass murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, terrorism, and unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance. Halder pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and his lawyers challenged his competency to stand trial. The trial court held the first of two competency hearings on February 23-24 and March 21-23, 2005. Three mental health experts submitted reports and testified regarding Halder’s competency: Dr. James Eisenberg, Dr. Barbara Bergman, and Dr. John Fabian. Although Drs. Eisenberg and Fabian concluded that Halder was not competent to stand trial, Dr. Bergman determined that he was. Dr. Eisenberg, who testified for the defense, had been a psychologist for twenty-seven years and a forensic psychologist for fifteen. He met with Halder on five separate occasions for a total of eleven hours. Dr. Eisenberg ultimately testified that Halder was not competent to stand -2- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals trial, but he provided two reports on Halder whose conclusions conflicted. In a report dated November 5, 2003, Dr. Eisenberg opined that Halder suffered from a personality disorder but was competent to stand trial. In a later report, dated May 24, 2004, he concluded that Halder manifested persecutory and grandiose symptoms and that Halder’s delusional conspiracy beliefs “made it nearly impossible for him to meaningfully assist his counsel with his defense.” Dr. Eisenberg arrived at the second conclusion without personally re-evaluating Halder, and his final meeting with Halder took place more than a year before his testimony at the competency hearing. Dr. Bergman, who testified for the State, had been a psychologist for thirty-five years and a forensic psychologist for twenty-nine. She had completed over fifteen hundred competency evaluations. Like Dr. Eisenberg, Dr. Bergman met with Halder on five separate occasions; however, she spent a total of fourteen hours with Halder, and her last meeting with him took place two weeks before her testimony at the competency hearing. Dr. Bergman testified that although Halder suffered from a severe personality disorder, she found no evidence that he suffered from a major mental disorder. She also observed that Halder was capable of discussing in great detail the events leading up to the shootings, as well as the shootings themselves. Regarding Halder’s specific understanding of the legal proceedings against him, Dr. Bergman testified as follows: [Halder] understood the charges. He knows what he’s charged with. He didn’t particularly understand what the designation, “aggravated” meant with aggravated murder but he knows he’s accused of killing someone. He knows the person’s name. He knows why he’s charged with attempted murder. He knows all the charges. He knows what the charges mean, what they allege. .... He told me what plea he wanted to enter and gave me a rationale for why he wanted to enter that plea. -3- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals .... [H]e is capable of understanding the nature and significance of the charges[.] Regarding Halder’s ability to assist in his defense, Dr. Bergman stated the following: [Halder] is capable of understanding the adversarial nature of the prosecutorial process; he is capable of participating in a meaningful manner in the process, in the courtroom while it’s going on and in my opinion, he is capable of consulting with his attorneys to develop a defense. Dr. Fabian had been a practicing forensic psychologist for six years and held a law degree. The trial court contacted him to evaluate Halder because of Dr. Eisenstein’s and Dr. Bergman’s conflicting diagnoses. Dr. Fabian met with Halder on four separate occasions for a total of twelve hours.1 He opined that Halder suffered from both delusional and personality disorders and concluded that Halder was incapable of rationally assisting his lawyers. Dr. Fabian also testified, however, that “the issue of [Halder’s] competency is a close call,” and he observed that “there is some room for debate among experts about whether [Halder] suffers from both a delusion and a personality disorder.” The trial court ruled that Halder had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was incompetent to stand trial, finding that Dr. Eisenberg was the least credible of the three mental health experts, that Dr. Fabian was the least experienced of the three, and that Dr. Bergman was the most credible and most experienced. The court also observed that Halder had given both Drs. Bergman and Fabian “detailed information about his involvement in the shooting[s] on May 9, 2003.” Consequently, the court concluded, “there [wa]s evidence that 1 Although the state court of appeals stated that Dr. Fabian met with Halder for a total of ten hours, the trial court noted that Dr. Fabian prepared two reports, dated January 10 and March 10, 2005, respectively, and that he met with Halder for ten hours to prepare for his first report. At the request of Halder’s counsel, Dr. Fabian spent an additional two hours with Halder on February 26, 2005. -4- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals [Halder] ha[d] a sufficient present ability to consult with his attorneys with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” At Halder’s request, the trial court held a second competency hearing on November 10, 2005. This time, Halder called Dr. Jeffrey L. Smalldon, who met with Halder on one occasion for a total of two-and-a-half hours to evaluate his competency.2 Dr. Smalldon concluded that Halder “[wa]s unable, due to the symptoms of a severe mental illness, namely delusional disorder, combined grandiose and persecutory type, to demonstrate a rational appreciation of the legal proceedings.” Dr. Smalldon noted, however, that the symptoms he identified did not prevent Halder from assisting counsel in the preparation of his defense. On this point, Dr. Smalldon testified as follows: “I shouldn’t say [that the symptoms] prevent [Halder’s] ability [to assist in his defense]. [They] [v]ery seriously compromise his ability to assist counsel in his own defense.” (Emphasis added.) The State re-called Dr. Bergman to testify. The trial court found her to be more credible than Dr. Smalldon because of the significantly greater amount of time that she had spent interviewing Halder and because “Dr. Bergman spen[t] more time in her practice evaluating patient’s [sic] competency than d[id] Dr. Smalldon, who spen[t] most of his time doing evaluations in child custody cases.” The court concluded that Halder’s mental condition had not changed since its previous decision and determined again that Halder had not proved incompetency to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 Dr. Smalldon previously had met with Halder on two occasions, in August 2005, for a total of five to six hours to determine whether he was sane at the time of the shooting incident on May 9, 2003. -5- Case No. 12-4244, Halder v. Tibals