United States v. Jacob Wessel, 2 F.4th 1043

In Aug. 2016 Jacob Wessel (felon) allegedly raised a gun at police; indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He has a long history of mental-health treatment and substance abuse.
Defense repeatedly moved for competency hearings; the court ordered three 45-day evaluations and held three competency hearings over 2017–2019.
Dr. Stephanie Callaway (defense-retained) repeatedly diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and concluded Wessel lacked the ability to assist in his defense.
Drs. Judith Campbell and Allison Schenk (government examiners) each performed lengthy observations, diagnosed personality disorders and malingering, ruled out psychotic disorders, and opined Wessel was competent.
The district judge credited the longer, more recent evaluations, found Wessel competent to stand trial (though she declined to accept his jury-waiver as not knowing/voluntary), and proceeded to trial after Wessel was removed from the courtroom for a profane outburst.
Jury convicted Wessel; he appealed only the competency finding, arguing the court applied the wrong standard, relied on unreliable evidence, and ignored contrary evidence.

Issue	Wessel's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Competency standard applied	Judge used a lower standard (Price) than Dusky	Judge quoted and applied the Dusky standard	No clear error; judge applied Dusky and review is for clear error
Reliance on government experts	Court improperly relied on Dr. Schenk (never spoke face-to-face) and Dr. Campbell	Experts each performed lengthy observations, ruled out psychosis, and found malingering/volitional behavior	No clear error in crediting government experts over defense expert
Jury-waiver inconsistency	If not competent to waive jury, then not competent for trial	Competency to stand trial and a knowing, voluntary jury waiver are distinct inquiries	Not inconsistent: waiver requires additional knowing/voluntary showing; judge permissibly denied waiver but found competency for trial
Weight of defense counsel’s observations	Counsel’s repeated, vigorous objections show incompetence	Court considered counsel’s views, ordered evaluations, and found experts’ evidence persuasive	Court adequately considered counsel and did not clearly err

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (establishes competency standard used: factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (a defendant lacking capacity to understand proceedings may not be tried)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (trial cannot proceed if defendant incompetent)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competency standard for pleading or waiver is not higher than Dusky; waiver also requires knowing, voluntary choice)
Price v. Thurmer, 637 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2011) (addressed in court’s discussion of competency phrasing)
United States v. Collins, 949 F.2d 921 (7th Cir. 1991) (standard that competency findings reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Garrett, 903 F.2d 1105 (7th Cir. 1990) (discusses Dusky standard in Seventh Circuit precedent)
U.S. ex rel. Mireles v. Greer, 736 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1984) (counsel’s observations are valuable in competency inquiry)
St. Pierre v. Cowan, 217 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes competency to waive from the separate knowing-and-voluntary waiver inquiry)
Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965) (defendant does not have absolute right to waive jury trial)