United States v. Brian Cavalier
705 F. App'x 278
5th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Brian Cavalier pleaded guilty to two counts of making threats by mail and was sentenced to 92 months; he appealed the competency determination underlying his plea.
- Cavalier challenged the district court’s finding that he was competent to stand trial, arguing the court overly relied on Dr. Joseph Zonno’s testimony and report.
- Dr. Zonno evaluated Cavalier in a three-hour personal interview, reviewed about four months of observations from medical/correctional staff at a federal medical center, performed clinical interviews and a physical exam, and considered collateral records and objective tests administered earlier by Dr. Jeremiah Dwyer.
- Dr. Dwyer previously suspected malingering, did not definitively declare competency after a short evaluation, and recommended restoration for further observation; both Dwyer and Zonno identified indications of malingering.
- The district court held two competency hearings, considered expert testimony (Zonno and Dwyer), objective test results, and its own observations; the court concluded Cavalier was competent and accepted the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court’s competency finding supported by sufficient evidence? | Cavalier argued the finding was unsupported because Zonno’s evaluation lacked an adequate evidentiary basis (short interview; he did not personally administer objective tests). | The government and court argued competency could be based on multiple sources: hearings, expert testimony, staff observations, collateral records, and objective tests by others. | Court affirmed: competency finding was not clearly arbitrary or unwarranted. |
| Could Zonno’s opinion rely on objective tests administered by another examiner? | Cavalier implied reliance on tests he didn’t administer weakened Zonno’s opinion. | Court accepted that medical experts may interpret tests performed by others and that no minimum hours/interviews are required. | Court held such reliance is permissible and does not invalidate the opinion. |
| Does a defendant’s selective noncooperation undermine a competency claim? | Cavalier argued refusal to cooperate with some testing indicated incompetence. | Experts and court treated selective noncooperation as evidence of malingering, not incompetence. | Court held failure to cooperate can support conclusion of malingering, not incompetence. |
| Did the presence of malingering require restoration rather than a competency finding? | Cavalier argued malingering diagnoses created doubt about competency and warranted restoration. | Experts noted malingering but also sufficient observational and collateral evidence supported competency without restoration. | Court held malingering indications did not require restoration given ample observational and test-based evidence of competency. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harrison, 777 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2015) (competency challenges can affect plea-validity and may be reviewed despite appeal waivers)
- United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court may rely on its observations, medical testimony, and others’ observations in competency determinations)
- United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2003) (competency determination upheld where court considered multiple expert reports and observations)