United States v. Andrew Kowalczyk, 805 F.3d 847

Background

Andrew Kowalczyk was indicted on child pornography charges; the case saw multiple court‑appointed attorneys withdraw after conflicts, and Kowalczyk sought substitutes and sometimes acted pro se.
After defense and government experts conflicted on competency, the district court held a first competency hearing, found Kowalczyk incompetent, and committed him to FMC Springfield for evaluation/treatment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(d), 4247(d).
A Bureau of Prisons evaluator later found Kowalczyk competent; the government sought appointment of counsel for a new competency hearing. Appointed counsel withdrew and the court appointed amicus counsel after finding Kowalczyk had waived representation by conduct.
At the second competency proceeding amicus counsel vigorously advocated for incompetency, called witnesses, cross‑examined the government expert, and filed extensive briefing; the court nevertheless ordered a renewed out‑of‑district evaluation and then recommitted Kowalczyk for up to four months for further evaluation/treatment.
Kowalczyk appealed, arguing (1) denial of Sixth Amendment counsel, (2) denial of right to testify at the July supplemental hearing, and (3) procedural violations of § 4241; the Ninth Circuit affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kowalczyk)	Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court)	Held
Whether § 4247/ Sixth Amendment created a non‑waivable right to counsel at competency proceedings	§ 4247(d) requires appointed counsel and a defendant whose competence is in question cannot waive counsel	Court may treat disruptive conduct as waiver and appoint amicus/allow pro se participation in limited circumstances	A defendant whose competence is in question cannot validly waive counsel; court was required to provide counsel but appointment of amicus satisfied obligation
Whether appointment of amicus counsel satisfied the right to counsel / adequacy of representation	Amicus is not true counsel; appointment did not protect rights	Amicus acted as an independent advocate and provided adversarial testing of government case	Amicus counsel provided "meaningful adversarial testing" (Cronic standard) and satisfied the Sixth Amendment requirement
Whether Kowalczyk was denied his right to testify during competency proceedings	Court improperly prevented him from testifying at the July 23 supplemental hearing	Kowalczyk had ample opportunity to testify during the two‑day evidentiary hearing; the July hearing was for legal argument and supplemental briefing	No denial of the right to testify; any initial refusal to let him speak at July hearing was within discretion and harmless
Whether the district court violated § 4241 by holding a second competency commitment/proceeding	Second commitment after prior incompetency referral violated § 4241 procedures	§ 4241 permits multiple competency inquiries and evaluations until competency is resolved	No procedural violation; multiple competency determinations are permitted under § 4241

Key Cases Cited

Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (Sup. Ct.) (incompetency inquiry and waiver issues)
Cronic, United States v., 466 U.S. 648 (Sup. Ct.) ("meaningful adversarial testing" standard for counsel performance)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (Sup. Ct.) (states may require counsel for defendants with serious mental illness even if competent to stand trial)
United States v. Ross, 703 F.3d 856 (6th Cir.) (competency hearing requires counsel; Cronic applied to standby counsel adequacy)
United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.) (mental‑illness history can preclude finding of knowing waiver of counsel)
United States v. Gillenwater, 717 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.) (defendant's right to testify at competency hearing)