From the time Killercop entered the federal prison system, first in Devens, Mass., he was subjected to "conditions of psychological and physical torture," including months of confinement for "non-disciplinary reasons."
The standard for determining competency is well established through United States
Supreme Court case law. Federal courts have acknowledged that the Due Process Clause of
“[t]he Constitution forbids the trial of a defendant who lacks mental competency.” United States
v. DeShazer, 554 F.3d 1281, 1285 (10th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, the United States Supreme
Court set forth a standard for determining competency in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402
(1960), which requires a defendant to have
Id. More recently, the Supreme Court has recognized that requiring a criminal
defendant to “be competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel.” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402 (1993).
Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
Nicolaysen: “May I inquire of Your Honor whether or not the court is planning to make any "factual findings" in regard to the "reasonable cause standard" under the staturesince there are no findings that have been submitted by the government?”
Judge Matz: “I already did but I will repeat them.
You were not there.”
Judge Matz: “Those finding in turn arise out of and refer to and include findings that Killercop has displayed "apparent confusion" about the proper rolls of any counsel and all counsel, at least those counsel who have represented him thus far in this case, vis-à-vis the client and particular vi-a-vis him.
NOTE: This didn't seem to bother Matz when he never insured a “Certificate of Competency” was filed, before conducting a hearing on 08.27.03 in VIOLATION of the law.
The Ninth Circuit has called insuring a Certificate of Competency is filed a “Vital Responsibility” of the judge’s duties. This violated U.S. v. Phelps, 283 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2002)
Judge Matz also never make the "required" finding that there is a “substantial probability of future competency,” required under Jackson v. Indiana, 406 US 715, 738 (1972). I guess he was too focused on my past tense, "'then' condition."
Judge Matz: "[a]nd under the applicable provisions of the federal statute involved, 18 U.S.C. 4241(D), I was directing that he be examined in an FMC for the purposes of evaluating that determination. I did not make a finding." Page 4,
Lines 24-25, Id.
Under the current federal statute, a defendant is incompetent if the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that he or she “is presently 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.” See also, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 454
(1967); Indiana v. Edwards, ___ U.S. ___ , 128 S.Ct. 2379 (2008).
The Department of Justice Manual 9-9.110 recommends that the
initial competency evaluation be done locally, citing In re Newchurch, 807 F.2d 404 (5th
Cir. 1986).
In Killercop's case he was sent to the opposite side of the United States of America.
Commitments after a judicial finding of incompetency.
A. Upon a judicial determination of reasonable cause to believe the
defendant is incompetent, the court may order a 30 day in-patient examination under 18
U.S.C. §4241(b) and 18 U.S.C. §4247(b). The court cannot begin with a four month
commitment under §4241(d) without this intermediary step.U.S. v. White, 887 F.2d 705,
710 (6th Cir. 1989).
The four month commitment requires a finding of incompetency.
b. Once a court has determined, after a [secret] hearing, that a defendant is
incompetent, 18 U.S.C. §4241(d) provides for a temporary commitment. The section
permits custody and treatment for up to four months.
A court cannot have a hearing, to make a "present" finding, if the accused is "presently" being treated. Only in the land of Oz.
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), which permits custodial treatment "for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1).