Opinion
No. 9805001002.
Date Submitted: March 8, 2000.
Date Decided: April 28, 2000.
DECISION AFTER COMPETENCY HEARING, DEFENDANT DETERMINED TO BE COMPETENT, Cr.A. Nos. IN98-08-1664 and 1665.
Paul Wallace, Esq. and Victoria Witherell, Esq., Attorneys General, Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, DE. 19801. Attorneys for the State.
Diane Clark Streett, Esq. and Brian Bartley, Esq., Assistant Public Defenders, Public Defender of the State of Delaware, Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, 1302 East 12th Street, Wilmington, DE. 19809. Attorneys for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On this 28th day of April, 2000, upon consideration of the expert reports and the testimony presented at the February 18, 2000 Competency Hearing, it appears to the Court that:
The issue before this Court is whether the defendant, David Reyes, is legally competent to stand trial for first degree murder and a weapons charge. Having considered the evidence in light of the applicable law, the Court finds that the defendant, David Reyes is competent to stand trial.
FACTS
Reyes was arrested on December 11, 1998 on the charges of Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. Reyes is a Spanish speaking native of Guatemala. Reyes has been in the United States since 1992. Reyes communicates with his attorneys through an interpreter. Reyes was evaluated to determine competency by Pedro Ferreira, Ph.D., Denise Michultka, Ph.D., and Alexander Zwil, M.D. Drs. Michultka and Zwil each utilized an interpreter whereas Dr. Ferreira, who is fluent in Spanish, did not. Each evaluator submitted reports regarding Reyes' competency and Drs. Ferreira and Zwil testified at the February 18, 2000 competency hearing as well.
See Reyes Competency Hrg., Feb. 18, 2000, Joint Exhibit 3 at 2.
Dr. Ferreira testified on behalf of Reyes. In general, Dr. Ferreira testified that a person's intellectual level can influence a persons ability to consult with and understand his attorney. Not surprisingly, Dr. Ferreira also believes that consultation with an attorney can be affected by any language barrier between the client and attorney. In addition, Dr. Ferreira testified that cultural differences can also have an affect on one's ability to consult with and understand an attorney. Dr. Ferreira further testified that psychological and/or physical trauma has "a definitive impact on our reasoning and way of thinking, feeling."
Reyes Competency Hrg. Tr. at 12-13.
Id.
Id. at 14.
Id.
Dr. Ferreira's opines that Reyes is not competent to stand trial because he is not able to consult with his attorneys with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and does not have a rational or factual understanding of the nature of the proceedings against him. Dr. Ferreira used the McGarry questions to assist in his evaluation of Reyes.
See Reyes Competency Hrg. Tr. at 39-42, Joint Exhibit 2 at 4.
The McGarry questions is one of the psychological tools used to evaluate defendants to determine competency. See Reyes Competency Hrg. Tr. at 23-22.
Id. at 13.
According to Dr. Ferreira, Reyes cannot realistically consider the possibilities of a defense because he does not have an experiential or culturally-anchored basis for realistic consideration of the possible legal defenses that may be used by his attorney or any other attorney on his behalf. With respect to Reyes relationship with his attorneys, Dr. Ferreira stated that Reyes told him on a number or occasions that he doubted the attorneys assigned to him and did not think they had his best intentions in mind. Therefore, Ferreira opined that Reyes is not capable of adequately or rationally relating to his attorneys. Nor does Dr. Ferreira believe that Reyes is capable of participating with his attorneys in planning legal strategy because of what Dr. Ferreira believes is "intellectually . . . a gap or lack of ability to fully appreciate the nuances of the legal system."
Id at 25.
Id. at 29.
Id. at 30.
Id.
While Dr. Ferreira does believe that Reyes is able to manage his behavior during the trial proceedings, he does not believe he has a clear understanding of the roles of the judge, jury, and attorneys at trial. It is Dr. Ferreira' s opinion that Reyes' understanding of the roles of such individuals is merely a superficial understanding, but does not go beyond that. However, Dr. Ferreira testified that he thought Reyes could understand court procedures with repetitious training over time. Dr. Ferreira elaborated by stating that the training should be done by demonstration by a neutral party, i.e., someone other than his attorneys.
Id at29, 30-31.
Id. at 31.
Id. at 31-32.
Id. at 33.
Dr. Ferreira opined that Reyes has an awareness of being charged with murder, but does not think Reyes understands the charges as they relate to him. It is also Dr. Ferreira's opinion that Reyes does not understand the range of possible penalties. According to Dr. Ferreira, Reyes believes that this is a death penalty case when in fact it is not.
Id at 34.
Id.
Id. at 34-35.
Dr. Ferreira states that Reyes is not able to assist his attorneys in putting together a defense that would take into consideration the various alternatives available; and does not believe that Reyes has a realistic perception of the likely outcome of the trial. Further, Dr. Ferreira opines that due to issues concerning the trustworthiness of his attorneys Reyes would not be able provide his attorneys with pertinent facts or give an accurate account of what happened. Dr. Ferreira stated that each time he interviewed Reyes he was given different information. Dr. Ferreira opines that Reyes has no idea how to go about challenging the State or its witnesses and therefore does not believe he could testify relevantly. It is Dr. Ferreira's opinion that Reyes cannot be completely motivated towards his own self-defense because he does not know the alternatives available.
Id. at 35.
Id. at 36.
Id.
Id. 36-37.
Id at 37.
In Dr. Ferreira' s first report he characterized Reyes' intellectual functioning as being three categories below the mean putting him in the mentally deficient range with a Full Scale I.Q. of 63. Dr. Ferreira testified that this low intellectual functioning does not prevent Reyes from functioning on a day-to-day basis like the average person. Dr. Ferreira admitted that Reyes' intellectual abilities are greater than his IQ results project. This is evidenced by Reyes' ability to migrate to the United States, move to and around various states, and obtain jobs. In addition, Dr. Ferreira agreed that competency to stand trial is not determined by intellectual ability or disability alone. Furthermore, Dr. Ferreira agreed that his opinion that Reyes is not competent to stand trial is partly based on Reyes' cultural differences and his inexperience in the American Justice system.
See Id at 50-52, Joint Exhibit 1 at 4.
Id. at 51.
Id.
Id.
Id at 52.
Id.
Dr. Zwil testified on behalf of the State. He stated that he utilized the services of Hugo Del Villar, a Board certified psychiatrist who is fluent in Spanish, to translate during the course of his interview with Reyes. Dr. Del Villar is not a forensic psychiatrist and he does not conduct examinations for purposes of determining competency. Dr. Zwil stated that the examination was conducted without difficulty.
Id. at 102.
Id.
Id. at 106.
Dr. Zwil also utilized the McGarry questions during the course of his examination of Reyes. Based upon his examination of Reyes, Dr. Zwil opines that "[Reyes] has the capacity to consult with his attorney, to assist with the defense, and that he has a rational understanding of the charges against him and of courtroom procedures." Dr. Zwil testified that he did not find any signs of mental illness nor were any indicated in the reports of Drs. Metchulka and Ferreira. Dr. Zwil stated that "cultural differences can affect Mr. Reyes' understanding of many points on the McGarry criteria," but maintained that the manner in which Reyes answered the questions satisfied him that Reyes had an understanding of what was being asked. It is Dr. Zwil's opinion that Reyes is competent to stand trial.
Id.
Id. at 107.
Id.
Id. at 111-12.
Id. at 113.
Dr. Zwil explained that given Reyes' educationally underprivileged background and his lack of familiarity with the American legal system he should be properly informed and prepared for trial. However, Dr. Zwil believes that Reyes has the intellectual capability to be so prepared. Dr. Zwil opines that given Reyes' cultural and linguistic differences he would require special assistance to understand the proceedings and in order to make decisions regarding his defense; i.e. Reyes would need to be provided with appropriately trained interpreters and information concerning the legal system, his rights, and available options. It is Dr. Zwil's opinion that Reyes' attorneys and the interpreters will have to be patient with him but he is fully capable of understanding what a person needs to understand about the legal system. Zwil believes that Reyes is capable of taking instruction, using interpretation, and participating in trial.
Id. at 114.
Id.
Id. at 119-20.
Id. at 136.
Id. at 138.
DISCUSSION
In Delaware, the State has the burden of proving competency by a preponderance of the evidence. The test for determining competency is "whether or not the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer rationally and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him." In addition, "it is also required that the defendant be able to assist in preparing his defense." However, it is not necessary for a defendant to understand every legal nuance in order to be considered competent. "The Court must consider a full range of circumstances, but is not necessarily bound by any one of them. The determination of competency is "not susceptible to generalized concepts or theories, but must be based upon the facts of the particular case.'" Nevertheless, ". . . from a legal standpoint, the competency threshold is quite low," in that the standard by which it is measured is that of the average criminal defendant rather than that of a reasonable person.The Court finds that the defendant, David Reyes, is competent to stand trial. The fact that he requires the use of an interpreter to communicate with his attorneys and to understand court proceedings does not render him incompetent. The Court considered Dr. Ferreira's opinion that Reyes is incapable of relating rationally to his attorneys because he does not believe they have his best interests in mind. However, the Court finds this is an issue of his willingness to communicate with his attorneys rather that his ability to communicate. In addition, the cultural differences raised at the hearing and in the written reports do not indicate Reyes is incompetent. Ignorance of the American court system in general and Delaware's Court system in particular does not render a defendant incompetent. While the Court appreciates the concerns raised by Reyes' expert Dr. Ferreira, it is not convinced that they render Reyes legally incompetent.
Further, Reyes, through his counsel and expert, argues that he is incapable of assisting counsel with his defense. However Reyes is not required to formulate a defense; that is the job of the attorneys. The Court finds that Reyes is capable of assisting in his own defense by utilizing the services of an interpreter.
The Court accepts the findings of Dr. Zwil as more credible with regard to the fact that Reyes has a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings against him. The Court, after considering the evidence presented at the hearing and a review of the expert reports, finds that Reyes understands he is being charged with serious crimes, that being first degree murder and a weapons charge, and that he must stand trial for these charges. The Court recognizes that details of the proceedings and charges may have to be thoroughly and patiently explained, but by no means does that render him incompetent. Reyes' attorneys and his interpreters will have adequate time between the date of this order and the trial date, which will once again be scheduled, to meet with him to adequately explain the future course of the proceedings.
Though Reyes' level of intellectual functioning has been categorized as being within the "mentally deficient" range, that in itself is not sufficient to support a finding of incompetence. "Almost invariably, where a defendant has been found incompetent, the retardation has been accompanied by some form of extreme psychological/psychiatric disorder." In this case, no evidence has been presented that shows Reyes suffers from a psychological or psychiatric disorder.
See Id. at 1007; see also State v. Williamson, Del. Super., Cr. A. Nos. 93-05-0249, 0255, 1249, 2249, Graves, J. (Jun. 16, 1994) (Mem. Op. at 13) (holding that the defendant was competent to stand trial even though he was found to be mildly retarded, show some signs of delusion, and suffer from selective amnesia).
Shields, 593 A.2d at 1007 (citations omitted).
Therefore, after careful consideration of the full range of circumstances of this case, the Court hereby finds that the State has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Reyes is competent to stand trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Original: Prothonotary's Office — Civ. Div.