U.S. v. VELASQUEZ, CR 16-00449-JFW. (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160812802
Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MENTAL COMPETENCY DETERMINATION OF HECTOR VELASQUEZ AND FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME JOHN F. WALTER , District Judge . The Court has read and considered the Motion for Mental Evaluation ("Motion"), filed by defendant Hector Velasquez ("the defendant") by and through his attorney, George K. Rosenstock, on August 8, 2016. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, and also based upon defense counsel's representations at the Court's August 8, 2016 status conference in this matter,
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MENTAL COMPETENCY DETERMINATION OF HECTOR VELASQUEZ AND FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME JOHN F. WALTER , District Judge . The Court has read and considered the Motion for Mental Evaluation ("Motion"), filed by defendant Hector Velasquez ("the defendant") by and through his attorney, George K. Rosenstock, on August 8, 2016. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, and also based upon defense counsel's representations at the Court's August 8, 2016 status conference in this matter, ..
More
ORDER REGARDING MENTAL COMPETENCY DETERMINATION OF HECTOR VELASQUEZ AND FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME
JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.
The Court has read and considered the Motion for Mental Evaluation ("Motion"), filed by defendant Hector Velasquez ("the defendant") by and through his attorney, George K. Rosenstock, on August 8, 2016. For the reasons set forth in the Motion, and also based upon defense counsel's representations at the Court's August 8, 2016 status conference in this matter, the Court finds reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense. Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1) The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a reasonable period, not to exceed thirty (30) days from the effective date of such commitment unless an extension is sought and granted based upon good cause, for placement in a suitable facility pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and 4247(b).
2) The director of the facility into which the defendant is placed is ordered to designate a suitable examiner to conduct a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant to determine his competency to stand trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and 4247(b).
3) A psychiatric or psychological report shall be prepared by the examiner designated to conduct the examination. The report shall include (1) the defendant's history and present symptoms; (2) a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and medical tests that were employed and their results; (3) the examiner's findings; and (4) the examiner's opinions as to diagnosis, prognosis, and whether the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. A copy of this report shall be filed with the Court, with copies provided to counsel for the defendant and to the government.
4) The examination of the defendant, and the submission of the report, shall both be completed on or before September 8, 2016.
5) All information contained in the report, and any and all information derived from the preparation of the report pursuant to this order, shall not be used by the government for any purpose at trial (including as impeachment and/or rebuttal evidence).
6) The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshals.
7) The defendant shall be detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center located at 535 North Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012.
8) The parties are ordered to appear at a status conference on September 12, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
9) The trial date and all related dates in this case are vacated, and will be re-set at a later date.
10) For purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial Act by which the defendant's trial must commence, the date of August 8, 2016 to the date on which the defendant is, if at all, deemed competent to stand trial, inclusive, is excludable delay for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A).
11) Nothing in this order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods be excluded from the period within which trial must commence. Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act may in the future authorize the exclusion of additional time periods from the period within which trial must commence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
