Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Thompson

November 14, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALBERT CHARLES THOMPSON, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge

(JORDAN/GUYTON)

ORDER OF COMMITMENT FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION AND EVALUATION

On November 13, 2007, the parties appeared before the Court for a preliminary hearing on a bench warrant issued by District Judge Leon Jordan on November 6, 2007. Assistant United States Attorney Steve Cook appeared on behalf of the government. Assistant Federal Defender Jonathan Moffatt appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was also present.

Defense counsel waived preliminary hearing, and following the Court's ruling that the defendant must be detained, defense counsel made an oral motion for mental evaluation of the Defendant Thompson, voicing concern regarding the defendant's mental capacity to assist counsel. For grounds, defense counsel noted that the defendant has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, and that the defendant has not been taking medications for that condition. On behalf of the government, Attorney Cook stated that the government did not oppose the defendant's motion, and in fact, concurred that it was well taken.

After carefully considering the defendant's oral motion for mental evaluation, as well as noting that the government concurs with the motion, the Court finds that the defendant's oral motion is well taken and should be GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defendant should undergo a competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241.

The defendant Thompson faces a revocation of supervised release hearing, which is yet to be scheduled. The time during which the defendant is undergoing a mental examination is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A). Additionally, up to ten days of transportation time is excludable under the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(H). Once the defendant returns from his examination, the Court will need to hold a competency hearing, the time for which will also be excludable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). If the defendant is found competent, the parties will need time to prepare for the revocation hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by the continuance for an evaluation outweigh the best interest of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). A revocation hearing date will not be set at this time. A status conference and/or competency hearing is set for January 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. before the undersigned. The Court further finds that all time between the November 13, 2007 hearing and the January 10, 2008 competency hearing would be fully excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A), -(F), -(H), and -(8)(A)-(B).

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. That defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his designated representative for the purposes indicated herein and the United States Marshal is hereby directed to transport the defendant to the nearest suitable psychiatric facility (hospital) for purposes of psychiatric evaluation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242. Said commitment shall be for a reasonable period not to exceed forty-five (45) days (to commence when defendant arrives at the facility), unless otherwise ordered.

2. That the receiving facility and doctor in whose primary care the defendant is placed shall file a written report with this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(c) as soon as practical with copies to counsel for the government and the defendant, said report to include:

a. the defendant's history and present symptoms;

b. a description of the psychiatric, psychological, and medical tests that were employed and their results;

c. the examiner's findings; and

d. the examiner's opinions as to diagnosis, prognosis, and

e. whether the defendant is 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.