Court Opinion

ID: 9474069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:47:16.791796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:53.348546
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because it is clear to me that the district court erred in finding that the Government had met its burden of establishing Lindley’s competence to stand trial.
*994In order to establish Lindley’s competence, the Government had to show that Lindley had “sufficient present ability to consult with his ... lawyer----” Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512, 518 (9th Cir.1981) (emphasis added). Yet, the only evidence the Government presented of Lindley’s competence were two medical reports prepared more than four months before the competency hearing. These reports are insufficient to establish Lindley’s competency. Dr. Coburn, who had examined Lindley the morning of the hearing, testified that Lindley was not presently competent to stand trial. It is true that Dr. Coburn stated that the Government’s medical reports, if based on complete information, might provide a valid basis for the competency determination. However, he also stated that he did not believe that they were based on complete information. Thus, the most credible, and arguably the only, evidence of Lindley’s present ability to consult with his attorney was the testimony of Dr. Coburn that Lindley was not competent to stand trial.
Lindley’s refusal to submit to further examination does not excuse the Government’s failure to provide evidence of present ability. It is clear that the district court had the power to order Lindley to submit to psychiatric evaluation despite his objections. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b) (1982); United States v. Wade, 489 F.2d 258, 258-59 (9th Cir.1973) (per curiam). Indeed, other cases suggest that in light of the conflicting medical testimony and the age of the Government’s medical reports, the district court had a duty to order this evaluation. Cf. United States v. Ives, 574 F.2d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 919, 100 S.Ct. 1283, 63 L.Ed.2d 605 (1980) (“Further inquiry is required whenever there is information available to the court which raises sufficient doubt regarding a defendant’s competence to stand trial”) (emphasis added). Thus, we cannot excuse the inadequacy of the Government’s proof because of Lindley’s objections. Therefore, I would reverse Lindley's conviction, and grant him a new trial.