907 F.3d 374
5th Cir.2018Background
- Porter was charged in a murder-for-hire case (and separately in RICO and bank-robbery matters); competency proceedings for the related cases were conducted jointly.
- Defense experts (Dr. Agharkar) provisionally diagnosed schizoaffective disorder / possible neurocognitive impairment after interviews; defense sought funding for further neuropsychological testing.
- Government-ordered evaluation at FMC Devens by forensic psychologist Dr. Channell initially recommended continued evaluation, later concluded Porter was malingering and competent.
- District court held a second competency hearing, reviewed records, experts’ reports and testimony, observed Porter’s court behavior, and issued a 62-page opinion finding Porter competent to stand trial.
- Porter moved for funding for neurological testing and for continuances; the court denied funding/reconsideration in related filings and denied two motions to continue.
- Jury convicted on all counts; Porter appealed competency finding, denial of funding, and denial of continuances; Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Porter) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 | Porter lacked ability to understand proceedings or assist counsel due to psychotic or neurocognitive disorder (per Agharkar) | Porter was malingering; had factual and rational understanding and could consult with counsel | Affirmed — district court's competency finding not clearly erroneous |
| Denial of funding for neuropsychological evaluation | Funding denial deprived defense of crucial testing to diagnose brain damage and to develop defense | Funding denial was case-specific and not before this panel for review; no reversible error shown | No ruling on funding merits by panel; procedural defect in challenge noted |
| Denial of motions to continue competency hearing | Denials prevented expert from fully preparing and prejudiced defense (late docs, need for testing) | Counsel had adequate time, expert had ~14 hours with Porter, discovery produced; continuances not justified | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no showing of specific, compelling prejudice |
| Right to effective expert assistance (Ake/McWilliams line) | Combination of denied funding and denied continuances left defense without effective expert assistance | Agharkar was sufficiently available, independent, and prepared to assist; unlike McWilliams volunteer expert | Affirmed — no Sixth Amendment violation; expert assistance adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for competency review and scope of factors district court may consider)
- United States v. Ghane, 593 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2010) (distrust of counsel or interruptions do not necessarily show incompetence)
- McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (2017) (defendant entitled to an expert sufficiently available and independent to assist defense)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (indigent defendant entitled to access to psychiatric assistance when mental health is likely to be a significant factor)
- United States v. Francisco, [citation="497 F. App'x 412"] (5th Cir. 2012) (continuance denial requires showing specific and compelling prejudice)
- United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138 (5th Cir. 1999) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (defense counsel’s observations may be probative of competence)