|
|
|
| Insanity/Competency |
|
United States v. Allen,
No. 05-7000 (10th Cir., June 5, 2006) (Published): Insanity Defense: Clean opinion holding that the insanity defense is available to a charge of Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
|
|
|
United States v. Morrison,
No. 04-4174 (10th Cir., July 19, 2005) (Published): Instructive discussion of the issue of whether the Government can administer involuntarily anti-psychotic medication for the purpose of rendering a defendant competent to stand trial. The District Court entered such an order but the Circuit remanded with instructions for the District Court to consider whether administration of such medication could be ordered for a purpose other than for the defendant to stand trial, e.g., for the defendant's safety or for the safety of others.
|
|
|
United States v. Bradley,
No. 03-8097 (10th Cir., July 28, 2005) (Published): Another case involving the Government's desire to medicate a mentally ill person to make the person competent to stand trial when the person refuses the medication. The Circuit affirms the District Court Order to involuntarily medicate Mr. Bradley, who rode his motorcycle passed a group of car salesmen in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and lobbed a hand grenade at them, apparently miffed about a car transaction. In this case, the Circuit sets standards of review and the burden of proof in these cases (clear and convincing evidence).
|
|
|
Clark v. Arizona,
No. 05-5966 (U.S., June 29, 2006): Insanity/Competency: The venerable test for insanity is encapsulated in M'Naghten's Case. For some reason, the state of Arizona has changed this standard by statute. The Supreme Court held that Due Process does not impede Arizona from doing this, holding: "Due Process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong.
|
|
|
Daniel Hawkes Fears v. State,
No. F-2004-1279 (Okl.Cr., July 7, 2006) (unpublished): 1. Insanity/Competency; 2. Prosecutorial Misconduct (Improper Argument): Fears apparently went on a shooting spree in Sequoyah County and ended up killing two persons and being convicted of seventeen counts ranging from Murder I to various firearms counts. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of LWOP on the Murders and a whole bunch of consecutive time on the other counts. Fears admitted to committing the crimes but entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (he told one of the Troopers that aliens were controlling him and his brain). During voir dire, the issue came up regarding what exactly happens to an accused who is found not guilty by reason of insanity. The potential jurors were asking this question and the trial judge would not tell them, presumably in light of Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36, which held that trial courts are not required to instruct jurors regarding the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Pursuant to statute, if an accused is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court "shall thereupon order the defendant committed to the state hospital for the mentally ill, or other state institution provided for the care and treatment of cases such as the one before the court, until the sanity and soundness of mind of the defendant be judicially determined, and such person be discharged from the institution according to law." HELD: 1) Ullery is no longer controlling law and jurors must be informed of the consequences of the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict; and 2) prosecutorial misconduct was pervasive and prejudicial, and encouraged the jury to reach a verdict based upon sympathy and emotion rather than the evidence presented (the prosecutor's arguments centered around charges that Fears "bought" a defense by hiring expert witnesses, criticizing Fear's decision to have a jury trial, expressing personal opinions about the result of the case, and "seriously misstating" the law on the insanity defense). Particularly repugnant was the prosecutorial tactic of calling to the stand a four-year-old victim of the crimes (she was two-years-old when she was injured). This witness was not endorsed. Trial counsel objected and the State agreed to fore go her testimony until after a hearing in order to determine whether she was competent to recall events when she was two years old. The State never requested a hearing and the little girl never testified. The State thus obviously called the little girl for the sole purpose of having her walk before the jury to the witness stand and the Court so held. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY(!) NOTE: this opinion is a total of over fifty pages in length and purports to overrule a published decision of the Court; yet, the opinion is unpublished(!?!) This is very peculiar. Trial Judge: John Garrett (Sequoyah County); Prosecutor: Monte Strout (Sallisaw, OK).
|
|
|
Maynard v. Boone,
No. 05-5063 (10th Cir., October 26, 2006) (Published): Standards of Review; Insanity/Competency; Waiver: Very lengthy opinion affirming an Oklahoma habeas case over claims of incompetency to stand trial and invalid waiver of right to counsel. The panel stated that it was required to "enter the labyrinth of collateral review under the [AEDPA]." Judge Lucero dissented strongly on the issue of waiver of the right to counsel, asserting that "Oklahoma allowed a mentally ill man to represent himself."
|
|
|
United States v. Valenzuela-Puentes,
No. 04-2283 (10th Cir., March 15, 2007) (Published): Insanity/Competency: Puentes was charged with illegal re-entry from Mexico but was found to be incompetent to stand trial by the District Court. He was sent to a federal medical center which failed to render him competent. Puentes was diagnosed with a "psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified" and an IQ in the 1st percentile. He believed he was employed by the United States government as "federal runner" and enjoyed dual citizenship and/or was a citizen of "the United States of Mexico" which he believed was a single country comprised of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. He refused all medication. The Government moved for an order permitting involuntary medication. The District Court granted the motion after a hearing pursuant to Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. The panel seemed concerned that the District Court did not articulate the proper standard (clear and convincing evidence) and failed to recognize the conflict in the medical testimony.
|
|
|
United States v. Herrera,
No. 05-2219 (10th Cir., April 4, 2007) (Published): Insanity/Competency: After a four-day jury trial, Herrera was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Four months later, he filed a motion for a new trial asserting newly discovered evidence that would show he had not been competent during trial (based upon undiagnosed and untreated diabetes and other physical ailments). The District Court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. HELD: AFFIRMED since the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|
|
Panetti v. Quarterman,
No. 06-6407 (U.S., June 28, 2007): 1) Insanity/Competency; 2) Habeas Corpus; Second/Successive: This is another 5-4 opinion in a capital case in which the Court addresses a claim by a Texas death row inmate that he is insane; and therefore not subject to execution. The opinion is lengthy and worthy of study, but the Court concluded: 1) the Fifth Circuit applied a too restrictive legal test for insanity (although the Court did not impose a definitive test); and 2) the AEDPA bar on "second or successive" applications does not apply to Ford (insanity) claims brought in an application filed when the claim is first ripe.
|
|
|
|
