The district court has a statutory duty to “order . . . a [competency] hearing on its own motion, 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).
INCOMPETENCY. Lack of ability, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge the required duty. As applied to evidence. the word ” incompetent” means not proper to be received ; inadmissible as distinguished from that which the court should admit for the consideration of the jury, though tbey may not find it worthy of credence. In French law. Inability or insufficiency of a judge to try a cause brought before him, proceeding from lack of jurisdiction. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 1st Ed. pg. 612)
“On review, [the] inquiry is not whether the trial court could have found the defendant either competent or incompetent, nor whether [the reviewing court] would find the defendant incompetent . . . . Rather, the record is reviewed to see if the evidence of incompetence was such that a reasonable judge would be expected to experience a genuine doubt respecting the defendant’s competence.” United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 814 (9th Cir. 2008) (alterations in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
A Judge Howard Matz malicious and sadistic standard of justice.
“Relief for plain error is available if there has been (1) error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Cannel, 517 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2008).
One of the foundational principles of our judicial system is the belief that an individual should neither be allowed to stand trial nor have his sentence carried out if he is incompetent. E.g. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-172 (1975) (“Competence to stand trial is rudimentary, for upon it depends the main part of those rights deemed essential to a fair trial.”). Allowing a judicial proceeding to continue when there is genuine doubt as to the competence of the accused plainly implicates the substantial rights of the accused and seriously affects the fairness, integrity and public reputation of the judicial proceedings.
(“The obligation to determine competency to stand trial is continuing, and persists throughout a proceeding including through the sentencing phase.”); see also 18 U.S.C. 4241(a) (noting that the inquiry into a defendant’s competence may take place “any time after the commencement of a prosecution . . . and prior to the sentencing of the defendant.”).
We have previously observed that a “judge may be lulled into believing that [the defendant] is competent by the fact that he does not disrupt the proceedings, yet this passivity may itself mask an incompetence to meaningfully participate in the process.”
A defendant is competent to stand trial and be sentenced if he has both a “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1251 (9th Cir. 2004).
MONSTER. A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind; which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. Bract. fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 BI. Comm. 246 (Blacks Law Dictionary, 1st Ed. pg. 787)
PRODIGUS. In Roman law. A prodigal; a spendthrift; a person whose extravagant habits manifested an inability to administer his own affairs, and for whom a guardian might therefore be appointed. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 1st Ed. pg. 950)