Opinion
Criminal Action No. 12-cr-00030-WJM
10-01-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. BRENT MAILAND, Defendant.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL
Defendant Brent Mailand is charged in a two count Indictment with: (1) theft of public money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641; and (2) destruction of an energy facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1366(b). (ECF No. 12.)
On May 22, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Determine Competency and Insanity of the Defendant ("Motion") asking the Court to authorize a psychiatric evaluation of Defendant and, thereafter, to set a hearing to determine Defendant's competency to proceed. (ECF No. 22.) The Motion indicated that the Government did not oppose the Motion. (Id.)On May 25, 2012, the Court granted the Motion and ordered a psychiatric or psychological evaluation of Defendant be conducted. (ECF No. 23.) The Court further ordered that a report of the evaluation be prepared pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(c), and submitted to the Court. (Id.)
On July 25, 2012, the Court received the report, prepared by from Susan Bograd, M.D. (ECF No. 24.) After thorough analysis, Dr. Bograd concluded by stating her opinion that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Defendant has a present ability to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, and thus that he is competent to proceed. (Id.)Upon receipt of Dr. Bograd's report, the Court ordered the parties to notify it by August 10, 2012 if either party believed that a competency hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c) and 4247(d) was necessary. (ECF No. 27.) Neither party has requested such hearing.
The Constitution forbids the trial of a defendant who lacks mental competency. Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 170 (2008). The Court must commit a defendant for treatment if it finds "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and the consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Having reviewed Dr. Bograd's thorough and well-reasoned report, the Court finds that there is no evidence showing that Defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease that renders him unable to understand the nature and the consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. Significantly, the Court notes that Defendant, who is represented by counsel, has in no way contested the findings in Dr. Bograd's report.
Accordingly, the Court hereby FINDS that Defendant Brent Mailand is competent to stand trial in this action.
BY THE COURT:
____________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge