Court Opinion

ID: 9463500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:09:01.513771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:09.180045
License: Public Domain

HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
There are differences in the details of this record, and the record in De Kaplany v. Enomoto (1976) 540 F.2d 975, but my conclusion is the same for the same reasons that I recited, dissenting in De Kaplany:
“The totality of the evidence raising doubt of [Bassett’s] competence was at least as substantial as the evidence tending to dispel doubt. Under these circumstances, the real doubt lingers and it could not be resolved without a Pate hearing ... to determine [his] competence to stand trial. . . . ” (540 F.2d at 989).
I would reverse for Pate error and remand with directions to grant the writ unless the State affords Bassett a new trial within a reasonable time.