United States v. Duncan
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14156
9th Cir.2011Background
- Duncan pleaded guilty to ten federal counts, including three capital charges, related to kidnapping, sexual abuse, and murder of D.G. and abuse of Sh.G.
- During penalty-phase, Duncan elected to represent himself; district court evaluated competence but did not conduct a formal competency hearing before ruling.
- Standby counsel timely appealed the competency ruling; Duncan initially waived appeal, but the court agreed to review standing and the competency issue limited to two questions.
- Evidence from three defense experts diagnosing delusions and brain-based impairments conflicted with court-appointed experts who concluded competency to proceed existed.
- Court found reasonable doubt about competency to waive appeal and represent himself, remanding for a retrospective competency hearing and evaluation of the waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standby counsel's standing to appeal | Mason supports standby standing in similar circumstances | No standing since Duncan did not want an appeal | Standby counsel have standing to appeal the competency ruling |
| District court's failure to hold a competency hearing | Evidence created reasonable cause to doubt competence | No need for a hearing; experts support competence | District court erred by not holding a competency hearing |
| Need for a full competency determination under 4241(a) | Evidence constituted reasonable doubt requiring a hearing | Competence was adequately supported by court experts | Record supported a reasonable doubt; must conduct full competency hearing |
| Retroactive competency assessment viability | Retrospective assessment permissible when record supports forecast | Retrospective assessments are disfavored | Remand for retrospective competency hearing on waiver and related issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason ex rel. Marson v. Vasquez, 5 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1993) (standby counsel can appeal a district court's competency ruling)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc treatment of issues in death-penalty appeals)
- de Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976) (reasonable cause for competency hearing; comprehensive review standard)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court 1966) (retrospective competency assessment cautioned)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court 2008) (right to be competent extends to appellate and post-conviction contexts)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (core standard for trial-competence to stand trial)
- Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966) (competence to waive appellate rights)
- Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2001) (retrospective competency assessments permissible when record supports it)