Court Opinion

ID: 9465621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:51:29.78171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:16.859772
License: Public Domain

McKAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
While I concur in the balance of the court’s opinion, I cannot agree that the trial court satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 4244 (1976) under the circumstances of this case. Before trial the defendant made an appropriate motion pursuant to Section 4244 for a determination of his mental competency. Dr. Miller was appointed. For some reason the government was not satisfied and requested additional psychiatric examination. The request was granted and Dr. Lewis conducted an examination. Thereafter, as the majority points out,
the court was examining one report, Dr. Miller’s, which found that the defendant was competent and the other by Dr. Lewis which found that he was not. . To resolve this conflict, the court ordered the defendant to be taken to the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, for further evaluation.
*1373The third evaluation supported Dr. Miller’s view.
Section 4244 provides that where a report made pursuant to the section indicates present insanity or mental incompetency in the accused, the court “shall hold a hearing . and make a finding with respect thereto.” 18 U.S.C. § 4244 (1976) (emphasis added). It is clear that the trial court failed to hold such a hearing. While Dr. Lewis’ diagnosis did not say in express words that the defendant was at' that very moment incapable of standing trial, it did say that he was psychotic, inflicted with schizophrenia and that he did not know the difference between right and wrong in a given situation. Such a report, even though there are conflicting reports, clearly triggers the necessity for a Section 4244 hearing. Indeed, when the experts themselves disagree, a hearing is uniquely in order to, as the majority suggests, “resolve this conflict.” A Section 4244 motion having been made and a report indicating mental incompetency having been produced, the mandatory language of the statute became effective and it was not required that the defendant make further demand for the necessary hearing.
Our case of Kienlen v. United States, 379 F.2d 20 (10th Cir. 1967), cited by the majority, simply does not support the proposition that if there is some evidence that the defendant is mentally competent, there is no requirement for a hearing. In that case only one report pursuant to Section 4244 was prepared. It indicated that the defendant was competent to stand trial. As no 4244 report indicated the requisite incompetency, no hearing was required by the section. The situation there contrasts markedly with the instant case where a 4244 report did indicate such incompetency.
Nor does United States v. Makris, 483 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 914, 94 S.Ct. 1408, 39 L.Ed.2d 467 (1974), support the result reached by the majority. The trial judge in that case ordered an examination of the defendant pursuant to Section 4244. As in the instant case, the report did not say in express words that the defendant was presently incapable of standing trial. The judge thus deemed a hearing unnecessary. The Fifth Circuit concluded otherwise:
Since the report as a whole indicated a substantial possibility that the defendant was then incapable “properly to assist in his own defense, . . . ” under the mandatory provisions of § 4244 the court should have held a hearing specifically on the issue of the ability of the defendant to assist his counsel prior to beginning of trial.
483 F.2d at 1091 (emphasis added).
It is true that the Makris court stated that reversal was not the necessary result. Instead, it directed the trial court to hold a hearing on remand to determine whether the defendant had been competent at the time of his earlier trial. The Fifth Circuit noted that it would first be necessary for the trial court to evaluate the feasibility of making such a retrospective determination. In its order, the Fifth Circuit indicated that if the trial court found such a hearing infeasible, or if the hearing indicated defendant had been incompetent at the time of the earlier trial, then defendant was to be granted a new trial “at such time he may be found to be competent.” Id. at 1092. At a minimum I would follow that course in the case before us.1

. Other cases involving a failure to comply with Section 4244 indicate that remanding for a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine competency at the time of an earlier trial is not appropriate; proper disposition is considered to be reversal of the judgment directly, with remand for a new trial, the new trial to follow a determination of the defendant’s competency to participate in that trial. See, e. g., United States v. Irvin, 450 F.2d 968, 970 (9th Cir. 1971).