United States v. Martinez-Haro
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12680
10th Cir.2011Background
- Martinez-Haro was indicted on two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),(b).
- Before trial, defense sought competency testing under § 4241; the district court ordered a psychiatric examination by Dr. Beverly O'Connor.
- Dr. O'Connor concluded Martinez-Haro appeared likely not competent, but recommended further Spanish-language neuropsychological testing to refine the opinion.
- The district court granted the Government's motion for a second competency examination despite Martinez-Haro's objection.
- Dr. O'Connor's equivocal conclusions and language barriers supported the district court's view that more information was needed to assess competency.
- Martinez-Haro appeals asserting improper authority for multiple competency examinations and challenging the interlocutory appealability under collateral order doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4241(b) authorizes more than one competency examination. | Martinez-Haro argues only a single examination is permitted. | Martinez-Haro argues the statute limits to one examination. | Second examination authorized by statute. |
| Whether the district court’s order for a second competency examination was an abuse of discretion. | Government contends additional testing was prudent due to equivocal initial results. | Martinez-Haro contends no abuse occurred; proper limits were followed. | No abuse; second examination warranted. |
| Whether the interlocutory appeal of the competency-order is proper under collateral order doctrine. | Appeal is appropriate to challenge pretrial confinement for evaluation. | Appellate review should await final judgment. | Collateral order jurisdiction applies; interlocutory appeal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1950) (collateral order criteria for immediate review)
- United States v. Deters, 143 F.3d 577 (10th Cir. 1998) (pretrial commitment for competency proceedings appealable under collateral order)
- United States v. Boigegrain, 122 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1997) (en banc; competency examination order appealable)
- United States v. Deshazer, 451 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2006) (collateral order doctrine applies to competency evaluation orders)
- United States v. Sprenger, 625 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2010) (statutory interpretation: language allowing more than one examiner)