Can't Waive Statutory Right to Counsel

The right to be represented by counsel at a proceeding to determine his competency to stand trial cannot be waived by a federal criminal defendant.

 

United States v. Kowalczyk, 2015 BL 362971, 9th Cir., No. 14-30198, 11/4/15

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit indicated that it is not logical to say that a defendant whose competency is being questioned can nonetheless make a knowing and intelligent waiver. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a waivable right to counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceedings. The Ninth Circuit has held that a competency proceeding requires legal counsel. The Second and D.C. Circuits have also ruled that a defendant whose competence to stand trial is in question cannot legally waive the right to counsel.

    These types of proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. 4247(d) which states that "[t]he person whose mental condition is the subject of the hearing shall be represented by counsel and, if he is financially unable to obtain adequate representation, counsel shall be appointed for him."

    The Court's determination turned on two things. First, that "shall," as used in the statute, is ordinarily a command. And second, following the Supreme Court's holding in Indiana v. Edwards, that the standard of competence for waiving counsel to invoke the right to self-representation may be higher than the standard of competence required to stand trial.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Kowalczyk_No_1430198_2015_BL_362971_9th_Cir_Nov_0?1450203024

Atkins Claim Not Precluded By Previous Non-Atkins Claim

Capital prisoners may file an additional habeas corpus petitions to assert an Atkins argument of intellectual disability, even if the previous non-Atkins claim relied on the petitioner's disability.

 

In re Chase, 2015 BL 351660, 5th Cir., 15-60452, 10/26/15

   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a capital prisoner may file a successive habeas corpus petition to assert a claim that he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The court indicated that, even though his first petition claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his intellectual disability to cast doubt on his confession and as mitigating evidence at sentencing, the previous claim was not an Atkins claim.
 
    The court indicated that this case was within the Atkins requirements that the claim not be presented in an prior application. The court ruled that a claim under Atkins is not the same as a pre-Atkins claim, even if that claim also relied on the petitioner's intellectual disability.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/In_re_RICKY_R_CHASE_Movant_No_1560452_2015_BL_351660_5th_Cir_Oct_?1449508854

Can Appeal "Not Guilty Due to Insanity" Verdict.

Even though the verdict absolved the defendant of criminal responsibility he has the right to appeal the finding.

 

Commonwealth v. Bruneau, Mass. No. SJC-11820, 8/27/15

Unlike an acquittal, the special verdict given in this case finds that he commited the criminal act, but makes him ineligible for civil comittment. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant has a right to appeal as a person who is "aggrieved by a judgment." This aggrievment is based on the harsh consequences that flow from a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity."

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Commonwealth_v_Bruneau_No_SJC11820_2015_BL_275264_Mass_Aug_27_201