Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:02-M-10
May 23, 2003.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on the referral of United States District Court Judge William C. Lee to conduct a hearing to determine whether the Defendant Corey Lamont Prince (the "Defendant") is competent to stand trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. For the following reasons, it is my Report and Recommendation that the Defendant is competent to stand trial.
Although some courts have found that a magistrate judge has the implicit authority to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial without a referral order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, see United States v. White, 887 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Bradshaw, 1999 WL 1129601, *1 n. 1 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 3, 1999); United States v. Hemmings, 1991 WL 79586, *4 (D.D.C. May 2, 1991) ("Since a Magistrate Judge is generally the only judicial officer who exercises jurisdiction over a criminal defendant between the time of arrest and the time of indictment, the contention that such a [competency] ruling is beyond the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge appears contrary to the intent of the statute."), other courts have reached the opposite conclusion. See United States v. Weissberger, 951 F.2d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (magistrate judge lacks authority to order competency examination without referral from a district judge); United States v. Ecker, 923 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1991) (commitment order under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 must be reviewed by district court judge in order for it to be final order appealable to the court of appeals). Accordingly, in light of the lack of guidance from the Seventh Circuit on this issue, and out of an abundance of caution, this Court's findings are set forth in a Report and Recommendation rather than a Memorandum of Decision and Order.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Defendant is charged by way of a felony complaint with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). (Docket No. 1.) Early in this case, a question arose as to the Defendant's competency to stand trial, prompting the government to file a motion for a competency determination, and the Court directed the Defendant to be evaluated by Dr. Stephen Ross, Psy.D. (Docket Nos. 11-14.)
Subsequently, the Court conducted an in-court competency hearing on August 6, 2002, and that same day, the Court issued an Order determining that the Defendant was then suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial, see 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and committing him to hospitalization for treatment. (Docket No. 21.) The Defendant was then transported to the Bureau of Prisons' Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri, where he was observed, tested, evaluated, and treated for four months. A forensic report (the "BOP Report") concerning the Defendant's competency and a certificate of competency was prepared and submitted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) (c). (See Docket No. 26) (under seal). Subsequently, the Defendant again saw Dr. Ross for a re-evaluation on May 17, 2003. Based on his review of the BOP Report and his own interview with the Defendant, Dr. Ross prepared a "Forensic Evaluation Addendum" (the "Report") concerning the Defendant's competency. Dr. Ross's Report was distributed to both government and defense counsel.
Finally, on May 23, 2003, a competency hearing was held before this Court. The parties stipulated that Dr. Ross was an expert witness pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702, and further stipulated to allow his Report to be admitted into evidence as his direct testimony. Thereafter, the government and defense counsel were permitted to cross-examine Dr. Ross at the hearing.
III. DISCUSSION
The Defendant is competent to stand trial if he has "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and . . . a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Eddmonds v. Peters, 93 F.3d 1307, 1314 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960)); see also Galowski v. Berge, 78 F.3d 1176, 1180-81 (7th Cir. 1996).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), the hearing court must find "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the Defendant is not competent to stand trial. The burden to prove a lack of competence is on the Defendant. See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 1380, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) ("Congress [in enacting § 4241] has directed that the accused in a federal prosecution must prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.")
Based on the foregoing standards, the Court concludes that the Defendant is presently competent to stand trial. This recommendation is based primarily on the evaluation of the Defendant by Dr. Ross, who the parties agree is an experienced, qualified expert. Indeed, Dr. Ross has reviewed the thorough evaluation contained in the BOP Report, and, based on his own observations, agrees with the assessments made therein. Moreover, Dr. Ross's own prognosis of the Defendant was as follows:
The defendant was noted to be very psychotic and delusional when previously evaluated by this evaluator in 2002. Since that evaluation, he has undergone treatment which included the administration of psycho tropic medication, individual and group counseling, and classes specifically designed for the restoration of competency to stand trial. This evaluator, based upon a recent forensic interview and upon a review of the defendant's report from the Federal Bureau of [P]risons, would conclude that the defendant is currently competent to stand trial.
(Report of Dr. Ross, at 5.)
Moreover, at the hearing, Dr. Ross testified that the he had spoken with the Defendant just prior to the hearing, and the Defendant was oriented as to time and place. Moreover, although the Defendant could not remember Dr. Ross's name, he did remember meeting with him for the May 17, 2003, evaluation. Dr. Ross also testified that nothing from his observations before the hearing would alter his opinion.
Defense counsel chose not to cross-examine Dr. Ross, presented no evidence, and waived his right to argument. Accordingly, in reviewing Dr. Ross's Report and testimony, the Court is convinced that the Defendant has the sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him, and is competent to stand trial. See Eddmonds, 93 F.3d at 1314.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is my Report and Recommendation that Corey Lamont Prince be found currently competent to stand trial.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendations must be filed within ten (10) days after the receipt of it in accordance with the above statute, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2). SO ORDERED.