United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MYRON
H. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant
Brodrick Brown is before the court on a petition for
revocation of his supervised release. The petition alleges
that he has committed two violations of the conditions of his
supervised release: (1) he possessed a firearm and (2) he
committed a new offense, that is, he has been charged in
state court with domestic violence in the third degree by way
of harassing communications, in violation of 1975 Alabama
Criminal Code §§ 13A-6-132 and 13A-11-8(b).
Defense
counsel filed a motion for Brown to receive a mental-health
evaluation to determine his competency to participate in the
revocation proceedings, as well his mental capacity at the
time of the alleged violations. The court held a hearing on
the motion, which is unopposed by the government, on
September 17, 2019. For the reasons explained below, the
court will order these and other mental-health evaluations,
all to be conducted at Bureau of Prisons (BOP) mental-health
facilities.
A.
A court
may order a competency evaluation on a party’s motion,
or on the court’s own motion, “at any time after
the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior
to the completion of the sentence” if there is
“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). The court may order
a defendant to be committed for a reasonable period of time
to the custody of the Attorney General to be placed in a
suitable BOP facility for this competency examination.
See §§ 4241(b), 4247(b).
On
September 10, 2019, Brown was evaluated by forensic
neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Shaffer, who determined that
Brown suffers from a “neurocognitive disorder secondary
to brain injury.” Motion for Competency Evaluation and
Motion to Continue (doc. no. 229) at Exh. 1. Dr. Shaffer
reports that Brown’s “racing thoughts and ...
communication are not subject to voluntary control.”
Id. Dr. Shaffer further opines that Brown
“will be unable to assist in his defense” and
“unable to communicate with counsel unless his mania is
brought under control with medication.” Id.
The
court, therefore, has reasonable cause to believe that Brown
is suffering from a mental disease or defect that renders him
incompetent to continue with the revocation proceeding. The
court will order him to be evaluated at a BOP mental-health
facility, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and
4247(b). Once the examination is complete, the examiner will
prepare a psychological report and file this report with the
court and with counsel, pursuant to § 4247. This report
should include a description of the psychological and medical
tests administered and their results; the examiner’s
findings, diagnosis, and prognosis of Brown’s mental
condition; and the examiner’s opinions as to whether,
given the demands that may be made on Brown throughout these
proceedings, he may currently 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).
B.
If,
after this evaluation, the court were to find that Brown is
incompetent to proceed, the court would then be required to
commit him again to the custody of the Attorney General, and
again he would need to be hospitalized for treatment in a
suitable facility, though this time in order to determine
whether there is a substantial probability that, in the
foreseeable future, he will attain the capacity to permit the
revocation proceedings against him to go forward.
See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1). The court wishes to
avoid the further delay and inconvenience to the parties, and
to the court, of another potential commitment, including the
extra time required to transport Brown from the BOP facility
back to this district and then back to the facility again.
Thus, the court will order that, if the BOP examiner finds
Brown incompetent, the examiner should, if possible and
practicable as allowed by the applicable statutory time
constraints, see 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b), and
without an additional court order, immediately conduct a
restoration evaluation pursuant to § 4241(d)(1) to
determine if there is a substantial probability that, in the
foreseeable future, Brown will regain competency. However, if
the evaluator concludes that Brown is incompetent to proceed
but is unable, for whatever reason, to reach the related
issue of restoration, the BOP should, if feasible, still hold
Brown at the evaluation site so that a competency hearing can
promptly be held by video-conferencing. This will allow the
court to order a restoration evaluation, if appropriate,
without first transporting Brown back to the jail in the
local district.
C.
Defense
counsel has also asked for an examination under U.S.C. §
4242 of Brown’s mental competency at the time of the
offense.
Because
of the circumstances presented in Brown’s case,
including the results of the preliminary evaluation by Dr.
Shaffer, the court finds it appropriate to order this
evaluation as well. Should Brown be determined mentally
competent to proceed, it is more convenient for all parties
to make the insanity determination now, rather than having to
recommit and send him off again for the determination.
Accordingly,
the court will order that, if during the course of
Brown’s competency commitment, his mental condition
permits the BOP examiners to make a determination of whether
he was insane at the time of the charged violations, the
examiners shall make such a determination. To the extent
practicable, the insanity ...