921 F. Supp. 2d 1265
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- Defendant Merriweather is alleged to have robbed a bank, killed two and wounded two others, and fled with hostage; he was apprehended and evaluated over years in federal and state proceedings.
- Govt sought competency evaluation in 2007; defense retained experts; multiple evaluations occurred at Springfield, FMC Butner, and Shelby County Jail.
- Dusky standard governs competency to stand trial; court adopts Dusky but discusses “rational understanding” and related concepts after competing expert testimony.
- Government bore burden to prove competency by a preponderance of the evidence; court ultimately found Merriweather competent and not mentally ill.
- Extensive expert testimony spanned 2007–2011; the court weighed credibility of Pietz and Berger most heavily due to time spent with Merriweather; lengthy videotaped interviews supported Gobdusky-based findings.
- Final ruling: Merriweather is competent to stand trial; a separate order will memorialize this finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden at a pretrial competency hearing? | Government bears the burden. | Merriweather bears burden to show incompetence. | Government bears the burden. |
| What is the governing standard for Dusky competency in this case? | Dusky standard applies; includes understanding and ability to assist counsel. | Dusky augmented by Drope/4th prong should apply. | Dusky standard governs; no four-part Drope expansion adopted. |
| Is Merriweather presently mentally ill preventing competency? | Evidence shows past drug-induced symptoms but not current mental illness. | History suggests schizophrenia; current state could render incompetent. | Not currently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering incompetence. |
| Do brain scans establish current incompetence or schizophrenia? | Brain scans inconclusive; cannot prove incompetence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (establishes two-pronged test for competency to stand trial: understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1996) (due process concerns with the burden of proof for incompetence)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (reaffirms Dusky standard for competency to stand trial)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (discusses Dusky standard and due process across procedures)
- United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899 (5th Cir.1976) (government bears competency burden; mixed questions of law and fact)