Stanford Attorney Competency Response

8/3/2019 Stanford Attorney Competency Response

1/10

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff CRIMINAL DOCKET H-09-342-1

HONORABLE DAVID HITTNER

VS

ROBERT ALLEN STANFORD

Defendant

PROPOSED ORDER

On December 20, 2011, the Court conducted a competency hearing to

determine whether the Accused, Robert Allen Stanford, has been restored to

competency to the extent he is now able to understand the nature and

consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.

Having considered the expert reports, testimony and oral argument presented

during the hearing, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Accused is

suffering from a mental disease or defect, which has rendered him mentally

incompetent to stand trial.

I. RELEVANT FACTS1. On June 18, 2009, a federal grand jury for the Southern District of Texas

returned a twenty-one count indictment charging the Accused and others

with, inter alia, conspiring to commit wire, mail, and securities fraud;

mail fraud; wire fraud; conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation;

Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 538 Filed in TXSD on 12/15/11 Page 1 of 10


2/10


3/10

3

6. On September 24, 2009, an inmate at Joe Corley assaulted the Accused.That assault involved the other inmates smashing of the Accuseds face

into a steel pole fracturing multiple bones in his face. The Accused also

suffered injury to the back of his head from being thrown backwards onto

the concrete floor. Finally, the individual assaulting the Accused stood

over him and kicked him in the rib area and possibly the head. None of

the medical staff attempted to determine whether the Accused suffered

some sort of traumatic brain injury as a result of this assault. There is a

void of evidence indicating why no MRIs or other testing was conducted

in this regard. In short, the medical staff made no effort or attempt to

determine the extent of any brain injuries suffered by the Accused.

7. The Accused was transported to a nearby hospital, where reconstructivesurgery was performed five (5) days after the assault took place. After the

surgery, the Accused was transferred to the Federal Detention Center

(FDC), Houston, pursuant to this Courts Order.1

8. While housed at the FDC, the Accused was prescribed a myriad ofmedications, including Klonopin, Zoloft, Mirtazapine Trazodone,

Prednisone, Enalapril, Proponolol, Amiodarone, Ambien, Librium,

Lopressor, Zestril, and Zocar. The dosages of certain medications that

1The Court ordered such transfer in order for the Accused to be able to

communicate and assist his then defense counsel.



4/10


5/10

5

11.On January 6, 2011, the Court held a hearing pursuant to the Accusedsmotion to determine competency under the Insanity Defense Reform Act

of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 4241, et seq. Following the competency hearing, the

Government and Counsel for the Accused submitted motions based on the

testimony and evidence presented. The Court heard overwhelming

evidence indicating that the Accused was incompetent. The evidence

clearly indicated that the Accused was heavily medicated and may have

suffered severe traumatic brain injury. All three experts, including the

Governments, agreed that the FDC had overmedicated the Accused to the

point of rendering him incompetent to stand trial and assist his counsel.

Two of the experts that testified opined that there is likely traumatic brain

injury suffered by the Accused due to the assault. The Court, therefore,

committed the Accused into the custody of the Attorney General for

treatment. The Government contended that the Accused was not legally

competent and moved the Court to commit the Accused to a suitable

facility, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 4247(a)(2), for a psychiatric

evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4247(b). Counsel for the Accused

contended that the Accused was legally incompetent to stand trial and

moved the Court to make a specific judicial determination to that extent.



6/10

6

On January 26, 2011, this Court issued an Order for Psychiatric

Evaluation finding the Accused incompetent to stand trial.

12.The Accused was admitted into the Federal Medical Center, Butner onFebruary 18, 2011, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), to begin his medical

treatment. After a four-month period, the medical staff at Butner

requested additional time indicating that the Accused was still

incompetent and unable to effectively assist his counsel or understand the

nature and consequences of the charges against him.

13.On November 2, 2011, a Certificate of Restoration of Competency toStand Trial was filed with this Court opining that the Accused is now

competent to stand trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241(e). This Court then

conducted a second competency hearing on December 20, 2011.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW14.The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the

government from trying a defendant who is incompetent. U.S. v. Rahim,

431 F.3d 753, 759 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S.

375, 378, 86 S.Ct. 836, 838, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)); U.S. CONST. amend.

V. In relevant part, the Fifth Amendment provides, [n]o one may be

deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. U.S.

CONST.amend. V. When making a competency determination, the court



7/10

7

looks not to the mental condition of the accused at the time of the alleged

offense, but rather is concerned with whether the defendant is able to

confer intelligently with counsel and to competently participate in the trial

of his case. United States v. Collins, 491 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir.

1974). The standard for determining competency is whether, by a

preponderance of the evidence, the defendant has sufficient present

ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational

understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual

understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. United States,

362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam); see also 18 U.S.C. 4241(d)

(adopting the Dusky standard for a judicial finding of incompetency and

requiring a defendant to be able to understand the nature and

consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his

defense.).

III. LAW &ANALYSIS15.The opinions of experts are not binding on the Courts judicial

determination of the Accuseds competency. See, e.g., United States v.

Gray, 421 F.2d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 1970); Feguer v. United States, 302

F.2d 214, 236 (8th Cir. 1962). It is well-settled that it is the duty of the

court, not the psychologists or psychiatrists, to make a specific judicial



8/10

8

determination of whether a defendant is competent to stand trial. 18

U.S.C. 4241(d);see also United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355, 360, n.9

(D.C. Cir. 1975) (citing Cooper v. United States, 337 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C.

Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1029 (1966)). Thus, the Court is not

required to adopt the opinions of psychiatrists or psychologists, but may

use expert testimony and reports in making its finding. 18 U.S.C.

4241(d);David, 511 F.2d at 360.

16.The Court has had the opportunity to review the reports submitted by theexperts of the Accused, and the Certification of Competency to Stand

Trial submitted by the doctors at Butner. In addition, at the hearing, the

Court heard testimony from experts for the Accused, as well as the

doctors who treated the Accused while he was at Butner. In light of the

testimony presented and the reports submitted by both parties, the Court

has no viable alternative but to disagree with the Certification of

Competency to Stand Trial, and find the Accused does not have the

present mental capacity to effectively assist his attorneys in preparing his

defense, comporting with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment.

17.The Court finds that the Accused is incompetent to stand trial at this time.Testimony clearly indicates that the Accused suffered a traumatic brain



9/10

9

injury due to the assault on September 24, 2009. Further testimony

indicated that the cocktail of medications administered by the FDC

exacerbated the Accuseds medical condition.

Accordingly, the Court finds the Accused incompetent to stand trial. The

Court further finds that the Accuseds mental condition has not so improved as

to permit the proceedings to go forward.

The Court hereby

ORDERS that the Accused is currently incompetent, and cannot stand

trial.

Signed at Houston, Texas, on this _______ day of ________________, 20___.

____________________________

DAVID HITTNER

United States District Judge



10/10

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Ali R. Fazel certifies that a true and correct copy of this document has been

served on all parties on December 15, 2011 via ECF filing to:

/s/ Ali R. Fazel

Ali R. Fazel


Stanford Attorney Competency Response

Documents

Transcript of Stanford Attorney Competency Response