Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BROWN, 13-cr-0159-WJM-5. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20140410935 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ, District Judge. Defendant Brandon Dujuan Brown is charged in a multi-defendant, multi-count drug conspiracy criminal case. (ECF No 2.) On May 21, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion requesting a Competency Hearing ("Motion") (ECF No. 214), to which the Government responded by requesting the Court authorize a psychiatric evaluation of the Defendant prior to the setting of a Competency hearing and, if necessary, set a hearing to de
More

ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL

WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

Defendant Brandon Dujuan Brown is charged in a multi-defendant, multi-count drug conspiracy criminal case. (ECF No 2.) On May 21, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion requesting a Competency Hearing ("Motion") (ECF No. 214), to which the Government responded by requesting the Court authorize a psychiatric evaluation of the Defendant prior to the setting of a Competency hearing and, if necessary, set a hearing to determine Defendant's competency to proceed. (ECF No. 236.) The Court ordered a psychiatric or psychological evaluation of the Defendant. (ECF No. 237.) The Court further ordered that a report of the evaluation be prepared pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(c) and submitted to the Court. (Id. at 3.)

On August 22, 2013, the Court received the Forensic Evaluation prepared by Dr. Jeremiah Dwyer. (ECF No. 27.) Dr. Dwyer stated that he could not offer a definitive opinion regarding Mr. Brown's present competency to proceed, and if the Court requires something more definitive, a longer period of time for observation and the acquisition of additional medical records would be required. (Id at 30-31.) Upon receipt of the Forensic Evaluation, the Court ordered the parties to notify it by September 6, 2013 if either party felt that a competency hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c) and 4247(d) was necessary. (ECF No. 370.) In response to this Order, Defense counsel filed another Motion, to which the Government did not object, requesting an additional 30 days to supplement the record with the additional medical records sought by Dr. Dwyer. (ECF No. 386.) Upon a Joint Motion the parties' requested the Court to set this matter for a competency hearing. (ECF No. 434.) A competency hearing was set for January 16, 2014. (ECF No. 461.)

On January 10, 2014, Defense counsel filed a Motion to Vacate the Competency Hearing, set for mid-January, and requested a second psychological evaluation of Defendant Brown to be conducted by Dr. Dwyer. (ECF No. 599). The Government did not oppose this request, and on January 10, 2014, the Court ordered a second psychological evaluation of Defendant Brown. (ECF No. 601). In the addendum psychological evaluation Dr. Dwyer concluded that Defendant Brown was in fact competent to understand the nature and consequences of the court proceedings against him and provide proper assistance to his attorney aiding in his defense. (ECF No. 761.)

Upon receipt of the addendum psychological evaluation the Court ordered the parties to notify it by March 31, 2014 if either party believed a competency hearing was necessary. (ECF No. 770). In Defendant's response he states that he "does not contest the finding conclusions of Dr. Dwyer regarding Defendant's competencies". . .(ECF No. 780.)

The Constitution forbids the trial of a defendant who lacks mental competency. Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 170 (2008). The Court must commit a defendant for treatment if it finds "by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to under the nature and the consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Having reviewed the only evidence in this case, both psychiatric evaluations, the Court finds that there is no evidence showing that Defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease that renders him incompetent to stand trial. The Court also notes that Defendant does not contest the findings and conclusions presented in the second psychiatric evaluation. (ECF No 761.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Brandon Dujuan Brown is competent to proceed with this case.

On March 10, 2014, this Court entered an Order setting this matter for trial as to the remaining Defendants in this action including Brandon Dujuan Brown. (ECF No. 745). Accordingly, the 9day Jury Trial set to commence on August 25, 2014 at 8:00 a.m. in Courtroom A801, and the Final Trial Preparation Conference set for August 18, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom A801 shall remain as set as to Defendant Brandon Dujuan Brown. Counsel are directed to this Court's Revised Practice Standards to ensure compliance with all deadlines triggered by the dates of the Final Trial Preparation Conference and Trial.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer