Filed: Jan. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2017
Summary: AMENDED ORDER FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT UNDER 18 U.S.C. 4241 GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . This order issues because of certain statements made by defendant Jose Guadalupe Lopez-Ramirez's and his demeanor during in camera proceedings in which he disagreed with the litigation approach of two of his former appointed criminal defense attorneys. At the first in camera hearing Defendant insisted that he "show" me a letter that presumably supports his contention that he has been
Summary: AMENDED ORDER FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT UNDER 18 U.S.C. 4241 GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . This order issues because of certain statements made by defendant Jose Guadalupe Lopez-Ramirez's and his demeanor during in camera proceedings in which he disagreed with the litigation approach of two of his former appointed criminal defense attorneys. At the first in camera hearing Defendant insisted that he "show" me a letter that presumably supports his contention that he has been f..
More
AMENDED ORDER FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 4241
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
This order issues because of certain statements made by defendant Jose Guadalupe Lopez-Ramirez's and his demeanor during in camera proceedings in which he disagreed with the litigation approach of two of his former appointed criminal defense attorneys.
At the first in camera hearing Defendant insisted that he "show" me a letter that presumably supports his contention that he has been falsely imprisoned by a state court for nine years. Part of the first proceeding concerning this matter is the following:
THE DEFENDANT: Also, I got a letter to see if I can show it to you. The letter that I been falsely convicted —
THE COURT: I don't want to —
THE DEFENDANT: Can I show you the letter?
THE COURT: Sir, you're here on another matter . . .
THE DEFENDANT: He knows. (referencing his defense attorney)
THE COURT: What? What did you say?
THE DEFENDANT: He knows. He knows. He had the letter writing where they have me false imprisonment for nine years.
THE COURT: We're not dealing with that. We're not going to deal with that. The question is who is going to represent you in this federal case. That's the question that you're here for. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Well, if you have any problems of discrimination, I want to be judged by a different judge in the United States of America, and I don't want to be judged by you. I have my rights, civil rights, constitutional rights.
THE COURT: How have I discriminated against you?
THE DEFENDANT: Because you were screaming at me, and here's witnesses here present.
THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry. That's not discrimination.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: No, it's not. No, it's not. Why do you think that's discrimination?
THE DEFENDANT: Because I want to show you my proofs, and you not accepting my proofs.
THE COURT: When you say discrimination, what do you mean?
THE DEFENDANT: Because you're not letting me show you my proofs for my innocence. And this case is the same case that I been punished over and over and over by African American judges. . . . .
THE COURT: . . . I'm starting to wonder what type of mental reports — what have the mental health experts said about his competency?
THE DEFENDANT: I've been cleared from all the doctors. My mind's clear to understand what you're all doing to me, because I really been illegally persecuted by African American judge. And I don't want to be judged by you. Simple as that. I have a right constitutional to be judged by a different judge. That's my request. In United States of America, I proclaim United States Army reinforced the notification that you're discriminating me by not accepting my proofs of my innocence.
THE COURT: That's enough. Let's invite the prosecutor back into the courtroom.
(Proceedings resumed in open court.)
THE COURT: Okay. Let the record reflect that the prosecutor has joined us. I'm going to appoint a new lawyer for the defendant. The defendant, in essence, asked me to recuse myself from his case because he considers me to be an African American judge, and he apparently has the opinion that African American judges are prejudiced against him . . .
During the second in camera proceeding with Defendant and another lawyer I appointed to represent him, Defendant appeared convinced that lawyer's representation strategy was disastrous. Defendant became argumentative, displaying a combative demeanor and gestures. Eventually his behavior caused a Deputy United States Marshal to warn me that Defendant was clinching his fist, thus indicating that he was about to attack his lawyer. Defendant called his lawyer a liar during the proceeding. Subsequently, the marshals had Defendant sit on a chair near the lectern behind which his lawyer stood, presumably so that the marshals could more easily control Defendant's hostile behavior.
Defendant appears to be preoccupied with what he characterizes as injustice rendered by a state court, and his notion that the above referenced federal defense lawyers failed to understand his innocence in that state matter and this federal case. On January 13, 2017, I appointed another lawyer to represent Defendant.
However, in light of the nature of Defendant's disagreement with his former lawyers, his behavior, and statements he has made, I have 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 assist properly in his defense. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Therefore, Defendant Lopez-Ramirez is committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States who shall find a suitable facility for the evaluation of him under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b).
The examining officials are authorized to access all pertinent medical and collateral information, including psychiatric and medical records and psychological reports and testing. The attorneys in this case should provide the examining officials information that could be helpful in the competency determination.
The Clerk of the Court shall include the United States Marshal and the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the service of this Order. The service on the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall have attached thereto a copy of the Indictment (docket number 1) and shall be served by email to the following address: gra-dsc/teampapa~@bop.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
