Case o' The Week: An Allocute Salute -- Dreyer, Competency, and Allocution
Proposition: A mentally-ill defendant who cannot effectively
allocate at sentencing is not competent.
Assignment: Litigate full scope of above proposition for
next five years.
United States v. Dreyer,
2012 WL 357071 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2012), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge
Reinhardt, joined by Judge Wardlaw. Dissent by Judge Callahan.
Facts: “At the age of 63. . . Dreyer experienced the
onset of frontal temporal dementia, a degenerative brain disorder that causes
changes in personality and behavior, impairs social interactions, and causes
inhibition and a loss of insight and impulse control.” Id. at *1. A psychiatrist, Dreyer conspired for six years to
distribute controlled medications. Id.
The offense began after the onset of dementia. Id. After Dreyer pleaded guilty, three experts agreed on this diagnosis
and explained how the dementia could affect Dreyer’s behavior. Id.
At sentencing, defense counsel
explained that Dreyer wouldn’t allocute because the disease made it impossible
to predict what the defendant would say (e.g.,
it could be offensive or untruthful). Defense counsel asked for probation;
the district court imposed 10 years. Id.
Defense counsel did not seek a competency hearing at any point, and
the district court did not sua sponte
initiate a competency hearing. Id.
Issue(s): “Dreyer appeals his sentence, contending that the
district court erred by failing sua
sponte to order an evidentiary hearing to determine his competency at the
time of sentencing.” Id.
Held: : "We hold that the record before the
district court at sentencing was sufficient to cause a genuine doubt as to the
defendant’s competence and that the district court committed plain error by
failing to order a hearing sua sponte
. . . In light of the additional circumstances of the case, we also direct that
all further proceedings be assigned to a new judge on remand.” Id
Of
Note: Judge
Reinhardt has long been interested in competency and mental health issues in
criminal cases and has authored a string of thoughtful opinions in this area. See blog collection of decisions here. Dreyer is another fascinating decision
in this line.
In Dreyer, Judge Reinhardt concedes that the question of sua sponte competency hearings is an
issue reviewed for plain error. He describes, however, the unique context of
plain error review, when a defense attorney hasn’t raised competency and the district
court has failed to initiate a hearing sua
sponte. Id. at *5.
The Court then
concludes that the “The ability to allocute . . . is an essential element of”
participation at sentencing. Id. Because
Dreyer was too impaired to allocate, it was plain error not to initiate a
competency hearing.
After Dreyer, is it now the rule that a
district court must sua sponte initiate a competency hearing when a mentally-ill
defendant cannot effectively allocute? Perhaps -- though Judge Reinhardt emphasizes
the considerable expert evidence that was before this district court at
sentencing, raising a competency red flag. Bear Dreyer in mind when arguing mental illness mitigation at
sentencing. If your client cannot effectively allocate because of a mental
illness, a sua sponte competency
hearing may await. (A hearing that, unfortunately, is often not in the client’s
best interest).
How
to Use: Read Dreyer as a useful primer in any competency case. One key insight
is that the level of competency required doesn’t change at different procedural
postures. The amount of client
participation needed, however, does change at different stages of the case –
and client participation is a key part of the competency analysis. Id. at *5. A client too mentally-ill to
speak in court may be fine for a bail proceeding, but -- as in Dreyer – would not competent at sentencing.
For
Further Reading: For an article explaining the tragic
facts surrounding this case – and reporting Dreyer’s problems at his plea – see
posting here.
Image of brain from http://dementiawareness.com/tag/frontotemporal-dementia/
Steven Kalar, Senior
Litigator N.D. Cal. FPD. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
Labels: Callahan, Competency, Mental Health, Plain Error, Reinhardt, Sentencing, Wardlaw
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home