U.S. v. Moghaddam

7 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Parker

    CRIMINAL NO. 4:14-cr-00141-GHD-SAA-15 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 10, 2016)

    A defendant has a right to a competency hearing if " 'the trial judge receive[s] information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about [the] defendant's competency and alerted [the trial judge] to the possibility that the defendant could neither understand the proceedings or appreciate their significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense.' "United States v. Moghaddam, 299 F. App'x 418, 419-20 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Williams, 819 F.2d 605, 607 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir. 1980))). In determining whether to order a mental competency exam or hearing, the Court considers three factors: "(1) the existence of a history of irrational behavior, (2) the defendant's demeanor at trial, and (3) prior medical opinion on competency."

  2. United States v. Segers

    4:22-CR-350 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. Moghaddam, 5 299 Fed.Appx. 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d at 906).

  3. United States v. Hooks

    CRIMINAL 21-054 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 2022)

    β€œOnce the defendant's competency has been called into question, the burden is on the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to stand trial.” United States v. Moghaddam, 299 Fed.Appx. 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2008), citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 1976). In the end, β€œ[Requiring that a criminal defendant be competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.”

  4. United States v. Deberardinis

    18-cr-030-01-01 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2021)

    β€œOnce the defendant's competency has been called into question, the burden is on the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to stand trial.” United States v. Moghaddam, 299 Fed.Appx. 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2008), citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 1976). Findings and Conclusion

  5. United States v. White

    CASE NO. 17-cr-00313-01 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "Once the defendant's competency has been called into question, the burden is on the prosecution to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to stand trial." United States v. Moghaddam, 299 Fed. Appx 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2008), citing United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 1976). B. Arguments of the Parties

  6. United States v. Baten-Calel

    CR. No. C-12-13 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014)

    "While the Supreme Court has not articulated a general standard for the nature or quantum of evidence necessary to trigger a competency procedure, it has focused on three factors that should be considered: the existence of a history of irrational behavior, defendant's demeanor at trial, and a prior medical opinion."Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258,1261-62 (5th Cir. 1980) (internal citations omitted): accord United States v. Moghaddam, 299 Fed. App'x 418, 420 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2008) (per curiam) (designated unpublished) (relying on same factors as in Lokos in post-conviction challenge to competency).

  7. United States v. Lamid

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 10-104-JJB (M.D. La. Jul. 30, 2012)

    However, at least one subsequent Fifth Circuit case after Cooper nevertheless placed the burden on the government to prove competency once the defendant's competency has been validly called into question. United States v. Moghaddam, 299 Fed.Appx. 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Makris) (emphasis added). The Court thus reads Section 4241 and Cooper as placing the initial burden on the defendant to proffer sufficiently convincing evidence to trigger an initial competency hearing, but that once a competency hearing is held, the government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to stand trial.