Court Opinion

ID: 9445731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:37:12.769807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:23.543614
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
In these cases, after intermediate proceedings not necessary to be detailed here, the appellant was granted hearings before the three District Court Judges who had presided at three separate trials in which appellant had been convicted of (1) assault with a dangerous weapon; (2) assault with intent to commit rape; and (3) another assault with intent to commit rape. The hearings so conducted were under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, to determine appellant’s competency at the time of his several trials.1
After extensive testimony was taken, covering in all some eight trial days, in separate findings each of the three judges found that appellant was mentally competent to understand the charges against him and properly assist in his defense at the time he was tried, and that appellant was mentally competent wtien he was sentenced. Two of the District Judges specifically ruled that, even if the Government had the burden of establishing such competency beyond a reasonable doubt, as to which we now express no opinion, it had carried that burden; and it is fairly inferable that the third District Judge, who, by consent, heard the testimony *631with one of the other judges, did likewise.
We think the findings of the trial judges were clearly correct and the judgments appealed from are
Affirmed.

. By consent of the defendant and the Government, the District Judges who tried cases No. 12,998 and No. 12,999 heard the evidence while sitting together. The judge who tried case No. 18,000 conducted a separate hearing.