Criminal Competency is a Due Process Right
by: Abassos • June 6, 2010 • no comments
You should add this recent 9th Circuit case to your trial notebooks when you have a mentally ill client: Maxwell v. Roe. Not only does a defendant have a Constitutional Due Process right to be competent (as set forth in Dusky and Drope), it is the judge's duty to protect that right. In this case, defendant's murder conviction was reversed because the judge did not, sua sponte, hold a competency hearing to re-address an issue the judge thought was settled. It's an interesting case because, on one hand, defendant became increasingly paranoid and psychotic during the trial, attempted suicide and was hospitalized as the trial went on without him. On the other hand, four separate doctors had earlier assessed defendant and found that he was competent and malingering; the judge made the legal finding of competence and, during trial, continued to believe that defendant was competent and malingering. However, the judge still erred because "where the evidence raises a bona fide doubt as to a defendant's competence to stand trial, a trial judge has an independent duty to conduct a competency hearing, on his own motion." Any judge should be doubly cautious because this case arose out of the very deferential habeas standards.
h/t to Ninth Circuit Blog with extra credit for referencing the Kobayashi Maru:
After Maxwell a smart trial judge will always err on the side of caution and have a competency hearing despite defense counsel's silence. What if defense counsel doesn't want a competency hearing, though? Maxwell sharpens the sticky wicket defense counsel face when trying to steer a (marginally) competent client through criminal proceedings to try to snag a good deal or minimize exposure. This scenario is the Kobayashi Maru for federal defense counsel - and Maxwell, inadvertently, makes this delicate dance even more difficult.
