*1 interest, damages, au- liquidated Funds for costs, attorneys’ proper. fees was
dit
III. Conclusion judgment of the district
We Affiem
court. MATHENEY, L. Petitioner-
Alan
Appellant, ANDERSON, Respondent-
Rondle
Appellee.
No. 03-1739. of Appeals, Court
United States
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Dec. 2003. July
Decided
included claim that he had incompe- been 30, 1999, tent to stand trial. On July court, hearing district without a in a detailed examination of the extensive rec- ord, found, among things, other Matheney competent to stand trial and denied his petition. habeas On appeal, this court remanded case to the dis- evidentiary trict court for an hearing Matheney’s issues related to incompetency claim. 27, 2002,
On November the district court, directions, compliance in with our held evidentiary hearing addressing the same matters decided its Memorandum (1) and Order wit: whether Matheney competent to stand trial (2) 1990; whether they trial were ineffective because did not demand a competency hearing prior to trial; (3) whether the state trial obligated to hold a competency sponte. sua hearing before, As the district court considered totality pertained of the evidence that record, to these issues from the trial (Argued), Alan M. Freedman Carol R. record, Heise, Justice, Midwest Center Evans- record, along the federal habeas with some ton, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant. additional evidence submitted the par- D. (Argued), Stephen Thomas Perkins ties. Creason, Attorney R. Office of the Gener- It again concluded that al, South, Indiana Government Center In- been stand trial IN, dianapolis, Respondent-Appellee. Hence, reasoned, the district court at- torneys did not provide ineffective assis- BAUER, KANNE, Before tance at his and the trial court ROVNER, did Judges. Circuit failing sponte err sua consider KANNE, Judge. Circuit Matheney’s competency. April an Indiana state court only the appeals district
jury convicted Alan of murder his competen- court’s determinations as to burglary. Agreeing jury’s cy attorneys’ and his effectiveness. For recommendation, herein, the trial affirm the judge sentenced reasons stated we deny death. district court’s decision to the writ. exhausted appeals his state-court direct and post- History I. proceedings. Moving conviction 11, 1998, July federal procedural courts on he filed a background The factual and petition corpus, for a writ of thoroughly habeas which this case has been laid out reasoning v.
prior opinions. See —excuse (7th Cir.2001) Anderson, crimes. 253 F.3d Anderson, IV”); Matheney (“Matheney early request for a The defense’s (“Matheney (N.D.Ind.1999) *3 846 F.Supp.2d 60 notwithstanding, tency the examination Indiana, ”); Matheney v. II I the ad- trial court did not order doctors (Ind.1997) II”); (“Matheney N.E.2d 883 Matheney’s competency to stand tri- dress Indiana, 583
Matheney v. N.E.2d doctors, So, Dr. court-appointed al. ”). (Ind.1992) I (“Matheney It will suffice Berkson, explicit no Batacan and made supply only brief present purposes competency in their written re- findings issues factual introduction to relevant Instead, sanity. ports Matheney’s on prior of the case and refer to treatments inquiries limited into whether doctors their necessary. Matheney was sane under Indiana law at 4, 1989, his of com- On took ad- the time of crimes. The issue March pass from vantage eight-hour petency of an an was raised defense counsel prison to into the Indiana state break after the initial motion. outside, ex-wife, home of his chase her and trial, however, Competency stand brutally bludgeon her to death with shot- years five later the Indiana addressed gun. overwhelming Faced with evidence in the post-conviction trial court review of crimes, linking Mathe- A Matheney’s lengthy conviction. eviden- ney’s first trial counsel admitted in the line tiary hearing The hearing was conducted. of his statement opening parte an ex examination of included indeed horrific act and performed this sub- by the magistrate, counsel tes- legal sequently presented the defense of himself, timony by Matheney expert and strategy ultimately This
insanity. defense testimony. proved to be unsuccessful. issues, many ques- Along with other indictment, Shortly original after his his competency to tion of stand requested counsel the evaluation of Mathe- fully trial in 1990 was reviewed trial ney by court-appointed psychiatrists for It post-conviction proceeding. court’s purpose determining Matheney’s argued received ineffective competency to trial his stand and mental assistance of counsel because his state time offense. The failed to secure a determina- incompetency insanity claim and the de- However, prior tion to his trial. in a sev- fense on premised Matheney’s were both and enty-nine page “Findings Fact Con- unique understanding events his Law,” April entered on clusions prison life. was in at the time post-conviction magistrate and kidnapped of the murder he because judge quote contrary. found We his children and his ex-wife. battered extensively from that document: attributing imprisonment Rather than actions, Matheney Allegation: peti- to his The own blamed a 3.08 Petitioner’s conspiracy pros- between his ex-wife and tioner was denied effective assis- ecutor, having he appellate whom were an tance of and counsel be- believed (and at preparing notify affair. for trial cause counsel failed post-conviction proceedings), Matheney petitioner incompetent in- that the incompetent pro- sisted that focus of defense should stand trial and was 9(C)(6).] thereby— be to this on direct expose appeal. [¶ ceed petitioner county The from the is but example. Conclusion: one As competent. has implied, working with petitioner requires great deal of petitioner asserts that he was patience. of trial incompetent at time appeal. note that counsel at the We petitioner’s is the problem? What post-convic- hearing petition on the foremost, First intensely is attempted post- tion relief to halt the narrowly focused that his belief conviction their prosecuting ex-wife and the the petitioner stated belief that remains Joseph County having St. were affair. incompetent. For the reasons discussed *4 imprisoned He that he believes pri- below, it of this is the conclusion court or to the as part conspiracy murder of is, always petitioner the and has putative between the lovers to him keep been, competent. way. finally, out of the And he also petitioner The raised the affirmative capital believes that his prosecution for of or defense mental disease defect at murder was an of extension that con- aby trial. He was examined number of spiracy the prosecuting because attor- professionals mental health who testified ney wanted to forever silence the peti- at mental petitioner’s trial. The condi- tioner about petitioner the affair. The tion no from the secret either trial narrowly is so alleged focused on this or The to jury. the decision raise conspiracy that he sees the of actions the affirmative defense was made the others, including the those of trial court trial appel- who also acted as attorneys, and his own as extensions of sincerely late counsel. Counsel believed to conspiracy the affair keep the from (and believe) peti- continues to that the being litigated the courts. He be- tioner had mental illness. The affir- affair lieves the is the matter at pursued mative defense was trial for worth even litigating now and has he this reason and because of the peti- patience suggest little for those who strategy tioner’s trial regarding the de- question the affair is irrelevant to the of evidentiary took fense into account the whether or not he murdered his ex-wife. advantage presenting testimony of from petitioner The for the petitioner through parties the third trial, on appeal, proceed- and in these putting personally without him on the ings communicating have all had trouble petitioner witness stand. The was con- petitioner with the of his reac- on strategy agreed sulted this to it. tion those he feels are not giving thing the petitioner One about seems sufficient attention to the is- very clear. He one of the is most diffi- it, appellate sue. As tells counsel one any cult lawyer clients that could be petitioner to let the talk on on needs obliged represent. virtually From things important about the he are feels filed, day petitioner the the case was the before other can be issues discussed. routinely has papered the courts with however, possible, Communication is if pro pleadings perhaps se that have dou- significantly, efficient. Most bled the of They volume the record. has that the lawyers petitioner stated was sub- kept
have scurrying deal stantively problems process with the involved plead- collateral those if ings create. even previously filing helpful The cited wasn’t as another of pro change might se motion for of venue client have been. everything pre- of with the details petitioner alleges that he was and
The murder, if “Competency” as and followed the even incompetent. ceded remains ability to under- beating here means the death used he did not describe the proceedings nature suggest stand no There is evidence itself. of a It preparation assist to assist petitioner was unable court that the the conclusion this is trial counsel. been
petitioner always has ill- have mental petitioner Does (1) nature he understood the because: short, disagree. The experts ness? trial, on appeal, proceedings say petitioner it that the is sufficient relief; petition way or an obsession delusional has (2) and, he was able assist is so thinking that some doctors believe of his defense. preparation it significant that rises to level petitioner understood nature This, of personality paranoid disorder. at, appeal, and in course, known at the time of trial petition re- judge jury through and the both plead- very It is clear from own lief. testimony. doctors’ *5 purpose that the ings that he understood appeal, psychologist trial and After adjudge to him innocent of the trial was petitioner preparation the examined the murder of his ex-wife. guilty or of hearing petition post- for the on the for that one issue the He also understood He reported opin- relief. conviction put he should be trial court was whether to petitioner was unable ion that the death himself for that murder. He counsel in the assist roles of the respective understood the petition the attorneys prosecution of prosecuting attorneys, defense case, “rationally at trial. not judges and trial court Like- could discuss his wise, he of from recognized purpose the the ... sufficient distance manage nor the that were a appeal and mechanisms the system appreciate his delusional pro se criti- of it. The repeated might possibility that he stand to benefit courts, attorneys, cisms the than perspectives from other his own.” rulings admissibility on the of evi- testified at trial on be- The doctor who dence, all are in themselves sufficient to do petitioner agreed. half of the We petition- that the support the conclusion obsession, petitioner’s The not. whether very under- always er has clear delusional, always it or made factual has standing proceed- nature of of the with it has not difficult work ings agree even if he did not with others’ impossible. it conclu- made This court’s presented in opinions of what should be sion that the was and remains petitioner proceedings. those it legal sense makes competent petitioner assist in The was able to unnecessary explain our further con- preparation defense. The one competency petitioner clusion rapport who had the best or required appeal not before was petitioner with was same one petition for relief could be postconviction represented petitioner ap- on who resolved.
peal. petitioner He found the frustrat- (A.R. 51-55) (endnotes 11; Exh. omit- C decidedly single-mind- ing, stubborn ted). extraordinary patience It required ed. But, Indiana Court affirmed petitioner. [the] to deal court’s determination of Mathe- petitioner provide able to lower ney’s alleged trial: ney’s competency to stand “Given beliefs relation- determinations before psychiatrists’ ship between his former wife and the opinions trial counsels*own of Mathe- prosecutor of Joseph St. County, this ney’s competency, and Berkson’s earli- not court does find that those beliefs so Matheney’s competen- er determination impeded Matheney’s appreciation of his not cy, trial counsel were ineffective situation as to him incompetent render failing up request follow their Thus, trial. process stand his due of competency determination with a formal right to be tried as a individ- Matheney’s for a hearing motion on com- ual not As Matheney violated.... II, petency.” N.E.2d competent, failure to Thus, courts, adjudi- 899.1 the Indiana raise issue prejudice did not him and Matheney’s cating effectiveness thus not violative of his Sixth counsel, appellate directly trial and state rights Amendment to effective assis- Matheney’s addressed and determined tance of counsel. at trial. proceed III, 60 F.Supp.2d at 862-63. brought then federal habeas TV, unfortunately we did § claim under 28 2254 in the U.S.C. take note of the Northern District of Indiana. That court evidentiary court’s lengthy hearing and ex- for an request denied eviden- “Findings tensive of Fact and Conclusions hearing competency,
tiary but then when Law” we observed that lengthy conducted a novo de review properly Indiana state courts had not con- “massive” record. The district court ulti- process competen- sidered due *6 made mately findings: its IV, cy Matheney claim. F.3d at 253 1039. of all of the On the basis facts stated mistakenly We understood that the above, Matheney this court finds that Indiana courts had refused allow “the competent was to stand under the majority Matheney’s attempts of to file Dusky standard. He the understood pleadings” competency. on the issue of Id. of and facts the situation he understood Finally, wrong were we we when stated in sentencing. consequences of trial and TV Matheney that: “The federal district Additionally, provided he some assis- Matheney court that had concluded not counsel, to his as perhaps tance not evidentiary received a full and fair hearing choose, they much as would not on his trial from competency stand completely unhelpful. Importantly, Agreeing Indiana state Id. courtsf.]” counsel, of including very none his faulty this remanded this premise, we case counsel, experienced lead felt that he a full evidentiary district incompetent. This court does not hearing Matheney’s competency at very that lawyers doubt these able original time of the trial. have is- incompetence would raised the remand, Although again sue had it been On the district court con- appropriate. court is well of Mr. this aware Mathe- sidered all the relevant evidence from post-conviction 1. The trial court also found cient evidence from which this Court can Matheney competent participate to be he conclude that has been unable assist in post-conviction proceedings: preparation presentation "while the of the of the petition petitioner’s certainly posed post-conviction character has issues on his re- 1361.) (S.R. challenge formidable and lief." Vol. 21 at The Indiana difficult, job upheld amade difficult even more Court this determination. II, testimony, Matheney we do 688 not find there is suffi- N.E.2d 893.
746 record, part judge to not consid- review on the the trial record, Matheney’s competency sponte. sua and the habeas record. er federal Matheney appeals of it discussed in two determina- This evidence—much the first III, IV, and Mathe and ineffective assis- tions — evidence and ney judge’s II —included medical not the trial tance of counsel—but health from all of the mental ex opinions sponte competen- failure to sua broach attorneys, family members fa and perts, cy question. Matheney.
miliar with Analysis II. Also, the considered addi- district court by the defense tional evidence submitted A. of Review Standard sub- prosecution. 20, 2002 videotaped
mitted a November
Respondent Anderson asserts that 28
Morrison,
Dr.
who
Helen
deposition
2254(d)(1)
(2)
§§
should guide
U.S.C.
original
expert
as defense
served
Matheney’s competency
into
inquiry
our
deposed for
and who had also been
2254(d)
part
trial. Section
is
stand
Death Penalty
Antiterrorism and Effective
deposition
Dr.
in her
Morrison concluded
(“AEDPA”),
statutory scheme
Act
that is
to stand
adjudi-
extremely deferential to state-court
to rationally
“not able
trial because was
appli-
It is
that AEDPA is
cations.
clear
pro-
to do to
what he needed
understand
petition,
cable to
habeas
“trust
a defense”
he did not
vide
24, 1996,
April
after
petition
filed
[Matheney
believed the
date of
See
effective
the statute.
Lindh
system”
attorney]
part of the court
117
Murphy,
U.S.
S.Ct.
therefore
(1997).
however,
Matheney,
L.Ed.2d
her
against him.
Morrison based
con-
2254(d)
§
deference is inappro-
insists
clusion on her assessment
particular
under
circumstances
priate
paranoid
from
delusions.
suffered
his case.
submitted
The state
Indiana
(1)
argues that:
state
which
memorandum
noted
*7
not
courts did
reach the merits of the
30,
March
psychological
refused a
test on
(2)
issue;
if the
competency
even
state
After
1989 on the advice of counsel.
merits,
findings
their
reached
should
27, 2002,
evidentiary hearing on November
court, in
ignored
be
this
opinion
before the district court’s
de-
IV,
to
ordered
district court
conduct an
relief, Matheney
nying habeas
himself filed
(3)
evidentiary
hearing; and
Indiana
handwritten
that discussed
*8
any
adjudicated
claim that
was
on the
pres-
not be tried unless he has ‘sufficient
in
merits
the State court
ability
lawyer
ent
to consult with his
with a
adjudication
unless the
claim—
of the
degree
reasonable
of rational understand-
(1) resulted in a
decision
ing—and ... a rational as well as factual
to,
contrary
or involved an unreason-
understanding
proceedings against
”
of,
application
clearly
able
established
Davis,
655,
him.’
v.
357 F.3d
Benefiel
law,
Federal
as determined
Cir.2004)
(7th
(quoting Dusky
659
v. Unit-
States;
Supreme Court of the United
States,
402,
788,
ed
362 U.S.
80
4
S.Ct.
or
(I960));
Drope
L.Ed.2d 824
see also
v.
(2)
Missouri,
171-72,
162,
in a
resulted
decision that was
420 U.S.
95 S.Ct.
(1975).
896,
based on an
determina-
Matheney knew he had
That
incompetent.2
Matheney was
proceed
ex-wife,
the nature
knew
only factor
certainly not the
pen
testimony is
and knew the death
against
ings
considered,
Benefiel,
See
consequence of his
however.
to be
alty
possible
judge’s
Furthermore, Matheney provided
(deferring to trial
F.3d at 660
357
actions.
facets of
petitioner
counsel with
to his trial
assessment
assistance
ju
testimony
petition-
Matheney understood
despite
expert
defense.
lone
favor).
coherently about
expert opinion
process,
testified
Dr. Morrison’s
dicial
er’s
by mag
But
strategy under examination
due consideration.
given
trial
has been
hearing,
considered,
took
post-conviction
istrate at
has also been
other evidence
participate
not to
from counsel
of the other ex-
testimony
direction
including
author
unless
health examinations
testimony Matheney’s
mental
trial
perts,
any
them,
from
restrained himself
ized
attorneys,
court,
and con
detrimental outbursts
himself,
of the evi-
and the rest
concerning the
attorneys
with his
sulted
in the record. See United States
dence
These
Cir.1991)
of his case.
(7th
factual considerations
Collins,
F.2d
overwhelming support
of fact have
findings
of defendant’s
(noting that the statements
record.
are
himself
attorneys and the defendant
judge
trial
for the
appropriate evidence
that his
Matheney stubbornly insisted
evaluating competency).
consider when
his ex-
excused because
crimes should be
anyone who
it” and that
wife “deserved
court,
trial
agree with the
We
in on
way must be
things
failed to see
this
Court, and the district
Indiana
against him.
conspiracy
Matheney was indeed
court that
theory
unreasonable
able to
—under-
to stand trial.
tent
poor
rejected by his counsel as
standably
attorneys
rationally
with his
about
consult
inexorably lead to
strategy
trial. He also had the
crimes and the
—does
incompetency.
legal
conclusion
pro-
ability
rationally understand
unquestioned competence
“[Piersons
he was involved. He
ceedings
which
legal positions.”
ludicrous
espoused
have
preparation
of his
was able to assist
James,
328 F.3d
States v.
United
Matheney’s attorneys testified
Cir.2003)
(7th
(holding that the articulation
to follow their
was able
imply
does not
legal
of unusual
beliefs
directions,
witnesses,
suggest
and discuss
incompetency).
Matheney himself testified
the case.
by Matheney’s
certainly frustrated
were
un-
proceeding that he
recalcitrance,
this frustration is not
by his
legal
presented
derstood
issues
satisfy
legal
definition of
enough to
some of
agreed
and that he
with
incompetency.
disagreed
others.
the issues and
deposition makes
Even Dr. Morrison’s
Matheney’s expert, Dr.
note that
We
Matheney was able to under-
Morrison,
clear that
expert
medical
to di-
attorneys,
that he
the role of his
rectly
legal
conclusion on Mathe-
stand
express
Matheney compe-
and had found
experts
testified as to Mathe-
nal matter
2. Other
have
*9
II,
Matheney
N.E.2d
stages
time.”
ney’s competency at
of his life.
tent at that
other
Smalldon,
hand,
Berkson,
other
Dr.
state-appointed men-
at 899. On the
one of the
post-convic-
Matheney's expert
at the
Matheney's
witness
experts who evaluated
tal health
trial,
Matheney was
proceedings, testified that
sanity
original
that "he
tion
at his
testified
post-
legally incompetent
time of the
years
at the
[before
two
had examined
proceedings.
previous
a
crimi-
conviction
in relation to
trial]
murder
nature of the
dice.
v. Washington,
understood the
Strickland
466 U.S.
668, 687,
factually
2052,
that he could
against
and
104 S.Ct.
751 That analysis was the extent the court’s mention of the provided by oth- only of the second factor. The other clue er counsel and the investigator who worked with reasoning appears as to the court’s in an for nearly year King, more than significantly, earlier statement that from March through “[m]ost 1989 the trial. petitioner counsel has stated that was sub-
stantively involved in the trial process Setting that moment, aside for if helpful even he wasn’t as as another King’s testimony provides no basis for re- might client have been.” jecting psychiatric testimony and con- cluding was competent at AEDPA, Under the the competency de the trial. King testified as to termination cannot if it stand is an unrea persistent belief that his ex-wife and application facts, sonable of the law to the Barnes engaged had been or if it upon is based an unreasonable against if people outside the determination of the in light facts conspiracy learned of that conspiracy, they presented evidence to the state court. 28 would find that his ex-wife’s death was 2254(d)(1) (2); § U.S.C. Harding & justified. King referred often to Mathe- Walls, (7th 824, Cir.2002); 300 F.3d 828 ney being unhelpful in discussing the Sternes, 696, (7th Ward v. 334 F.3d 703-04 case, murder or the merits of the further Cir.2003). “A state court decision that stating that communication with upon rests a determination of fact that lies helpful way one that his written —in against is, weight clear of the evidence and verbal inability statements and to fo- by definition, a decision ‘so inadequately cus on matters outside that delusion pro- supported by arbitrary the record’ as to be support vided insanity and therefore objectively unreasonable.” instance, For when asked whether Mathe- Ward, 704, quoting F.3d Hall v. ney was involved in devising defense, (7th Washington, 106 F.3d Cir. King responded that his spent time 1997). That standard is met A here. reading what number of attorneys testified in this case. wrote was “a primary factor in the defense All of provided them testimony consistent ultimately [insanity] relied on .... diagnoses by with the Drs. Morrison and being terms of him at all helpful, terms Smalldon. allegations merits of the that he King Scott was the lead counsel in the wife, killed his no.” PCR at 1626. Simi- trial and appeal’s to be the refer- larly, when asked if Matheney was able to post-conviction enced court when help preparing cross-examination, determining that Matheney was able to King noted that “in lacking addition to assist in his defense. It is curious that typical objectivity, he also had a particular King’s testimony is the evidence re- dent completely away [sic] from the case” upon by lied the court in making the as- focused on the conspiracy with Michael sessment of competence at the Barnes and his ex-wife. Id. at 1628. As a time of particularly given the result, King testified that he was not help- procedural history of this case. King was ful in preparing for cross-examination of appointed as counsel for witnesses, state the sense of be- “[i]n until February and the trial took tween writings and between his con- place a mere two duct, months later. Neverthe- okay, supporting the use of the in- less, defense, sanity mentions yeah, that helpful only King by description rather than dictate that.” That support cannot — name—in finding competency, with no court’s decision *12 actively plan- that was It testified in his defense.
Matheney could assist defense, that defense was ning his if a defendant’s be ironic indeed would it” because of his ex-wife “deserved “as- interpreted as behavior was irrational Barnes, herself and conspiracy between defense,” rendering him in thus sisting just be if the information would and that gave it to stand then he be vindicated. made would public, in- that he was further evidence to reason Lahey was unable Id. at 1500. repeatedly Mathe- King recounts sane. of regarding him the effectiveness delusion, his ina- ney’s fixation on Lahey Id. stated that defense. of in bility engage discussions outside insanity was defense pursue decision to in fact little There is that delusion. Matheney’s inability on partly based court’s testimony support King’s than the any defense other assist him Matheney provided sub- conclusion that focused. upon one. which post-con- Because stantial assistance. at 1514. Id. as to what provided court no details viction singular finding One illustration testimony supported its his insistence on on that defense was precisely the focus tency, it is difficult to address against Lahey argued change a of venue. issue, contains testimony by King but the Matheney, the motion with based dis- support the court’s nothing would Joseph jury that no in St. on his view fact, opinions. psychiatric missal of the capital punish- a County had ever returned a of occasions King testified on number verdict, judge ment Dr. Morrison’s as- that he concurred with compassionate and reasonable case was as Matheney. King’s ultimate sessment deciding hope a as he could to have person Matheney was that he was assessment of Lahey felt that issue. Id. at 1528. de- on the case as he “singularly focused change in venue to Lake Coun- obtaining ongoing saga it. fined Which was ty, one of two counties that which was incar- injustice from his then promulgating verdicts, capital punishment had returned definition of the ceration. And that’s his warrant. Id. signing his own death with the portrayal case.” That meshes to reason with Mathe- Lahey was unable and Dr. analyses of Dr. Morrison Small- however, that the court ney, who believed don, for a provide basis does County con- system Joseph in St. finding competency: Barnes, in that prosecutor trolled Moreover, in- of others in an county, that if he could be tried post-trial in the trial and process volved outlying county, jury would hear what competency deter- further contradict the that his actions say he had to and decide Although mination. justified. at 1520. were Id. solely King’s appeared rely obtaining ultimately succeeded including Charles testimony, other counsel Lahey provides thus change of venue. counsel for Lahey also testified. He was example of a defense decision concrete 1989, nearly year Matheney from March conspiracy Matheney made based on his joined Sig- team. King the defense before delusion, impervious to the rational advice nificantly, Lahey person whom Lahey further recounted attorneys. of his upon one he relied King identified as the motion, to that opposition that after his insight Matheney. into trusted which is longer no extensively predic- the in- with Dr. Morrison’s Lahey testified about also consistent eventually be out- tion that his would ability to communicate with instance, perpetuating the Lahey conspiracy, added to the For side his delusion. Lahey any concluded that defense team in meaningful way. delusion. defense, was obsessed with His assistance was limited to providing any with him on evidence unable to work lengthy lists of of people names he be- lines, of no along other than those and was lieved would provide support for his own legitimate on the is- assistance whatsoever theory of how the case should be tried. in the case. at 1543. sues that existed Id. Id. 2056-57. Lahey appeared to be unfamiliar with the *13 Finally, attorneys Matheney the two test, stat- prong second in post-conviction relief also testified that ing problem that he did not label it as a Matheney was unable assist in his own “maybe psychiatrist competence, because defense. Yet the same say would that was because of his obses- court held that he was in but it wasn’t because he was sive behavior proceeding as well. Steven Schutte —co- off the walls bouncing and didn’t know Jr., Jeffrey Merryman, counsel with testi- was,” day it or I what was who which of fied as to intractable fixation part course relates to the first the test. conspiracy, with the and the difficulties Lahey’s testimony Id. establishes trying to establish trust with Matheney. Matheney competen- met the first factor of Schutte declared that his representation of cy, that he understood the nature of the Matheney awas constant balance between one, proceedings, but not the second conducting investigation that the case in his he was able to assist required gaining enough trust with addition, In the record an affi- contained Matheney proceed properly. Id. at Radde, a private davit from Steven investi- step 1334. Each in one direction him cost gator who worked for 10-13 months for in the other. Id. at 1334. Schutte testi- case, Matheney defense in the and who try fied that and establish trust with spent a amount of time with considerable Matheney, investigated some Mathe- Matheney. Id. 2056. One Radde’s ney’s “conspiracy” claims. Id. at 1332. assignments was to locate and interview He further that Matheney noted had tens brought to the de- numerous witnesses pages of thousands of of documents in his by Matheney. attention Rad- fense team’s possession, lawyers but would not let his conversations, de stated that their all Matheney see of them. decided when Schutte would view them and in or- what exclusively talked proving almost about der, feared that if conspiracy there was a between Lisa Schutte viewed them out of order or out of Virtually Bianco Michael Barnes. context, might Schutte not understand the requested all of the witnesses he we find significance to his case. Id. at help prove were witnesses he said would impacted 1332-33. Trust issues Schutte conspiracy. He insisted that no oth- instance, ways other as well. For Mathe- er issues existed or mattered. I do not ney signed some authorization and release believe that Mr. ever under- early representation, forms later theory stood that his of defense was sign any refused to more. Id. at 1333. unsympathetic. irrational and He insist- Furthermore, own, Matheney acted on his justi- ed to the end that his conduct was filing, example, witness list that con- fied, if and that the existence of the names, trying tained 206 to control shown, conspiracy against him was who contacted. at- Schutte Schutte’s agree world would and he would be ex- investigate properly by the case tempts onerated. Mr. was unable to my contacting persons assist me role as relevant would have the Matheney’s ability position to assess adversely impacting better effect problematic fact, the court in his defense. Matheney’s trust. to assist gaining efforts identify precision compe- not even did He testified it find that convinced tent. testimony. tency despite psychiatric co-counsel, represented Merryman, His Instead, merely focused on one and also con- years for three or distinguishing attorney, King, without speak Matheney was unable cluded that testimony of the other discrediting the his case. Mathe- rationally about with him Matheney. King represented persons who Merryman discuss with ney refused to far, had, amount of time the least not consider relevant anything that he did op- months —as trial —2 the case- before case, he defined as the his which co- nearly 13 months that posed to the and the his ex-wife conspiracy between Matheney, counsel had worked with information That -included prosecutor. *14 who investigator for the similar amount day did about what More- regarding competency. testified background, both of which crime and his over, that Mathe- King repeatedly testified Id. at 1332- his mental health. related to to aid in his defense on ney was unable lines, Matheney would Along similar merits, only in that helpful that he was his friends were and tell them who that the cemented the notion his behavior with family cooperate not to instructed his insanity. King further best defense Merryman con- Id. at 1326. lawyers. occasions, testified, that he multiple on perspec- some by trying provide cluded assessment. agreed with Morrison’s He stated problem. tive on the .that post-convic- Dr. Morrison testified years nine and had practiced law for her examination of tion court that based on Defender. As a a trial level Public been trial, ra- not able to Matheney at he was result, familiar difficult clients he was with attorneys. tionally with his The consult cooperate elected not to and clients who court find- post-conviction decision of the reasons; however, he had nev- for various appli- was an unreasonable ing competency put As he litigated competency before. er facts, and was cation of the law to the it, he had determination upon based unreasonable obstreper- client’s [his] never felt light pre- of the evidence of the facts a difficulty result ha[d] ousness or been Therefore, court. sented to the State a will of anything other than free more cannot stand even under the decision case, Matheney’s truly I Mr. decisions. AEDPA standard. deferential have the free that he does believe not. on whether or to make the decisions will Although majority primarily relies any issues in- not to talk to me about finding court’s on the This is not a diffi- volved this case. relief, other court deci- denying habeas cult I have had difficult clients client. fare no better under sions on the issue sick, client, unfortu- before. This is out, First, majority scrutiny. points as the nately. very, very sad man. He’s held that: Supreme the Indiana Court Id. at 1334-35. determinations psychiatrists’ “Given the trial, opinions trial counsel’s own not find before court did and Dr. Berk- Matheney’s competency, attor- attorneys, post-conviction son’s earlier determination neys, investigator or incredible. The were not ineffec- competency, of the'wit- trial counsel weigh did not up request their nesses, failing in a tive for to follow determining that some were tence should for a determination have cautioned his trial attor- hearing motion for a on neys formal as to the need for a competency II, N.E.2d at competency.” determination, rather than absolving them psychiatrists in the 899. None of the of that issue as the Supreme Indiana however, any opinion regarding rendered Finally, perhaps Court held. most and the Indiana competency, tellingly, did not determine explanation why no as to provides Court that a competency determination un- opinions regarding their whether he necessary. They determined that it was legally insane at the time of the crime necessary, sought it from the court. the determination of wheth- impact should psy- When the court failed to instruct the presently er he was able to assist chiatrists to an opinion render especially This is true consider- however, tency, they failed to up follow ing psychiatrists that at least two those Instead, opinion. and obtain that they ap- illness, ultimately recognized par- a mental peared operate from the mistaken be- disorder, personality anoid and the other lief that regarding the decision Mathe- astonishingly did not because he be- ney’s legal sanity dispositive necessary lieved that hallucinations were competency issue. very Those are two every symptom of mental illness. More- different, inquiries. Moreover, unrelated over, the determination Dr. Berkson subsequent testimony, even in their these years prior two an unrelated criminal *15 attorneys indicated a fundamental misun- proceeding competent pro- that he was derstanding prongs of the two com- support forego vides no for a decision to determination, petency believing that determination in this trial. was if he understood That earlier determination reflected con- the nature of the proceedings though even compe- cerns at that time as well his about repeatedly testifying also that he could fact, tency. attorney In who worked provide no assistance whatsoever on the Matheney at that time to with wrote legitimate in issues existed the case Joseph department prior St. Probation singularly he focused on the sentencing, expressing his conspiracy delusion. The Indiana Su- opinion personality had preme accepted legal Court those conclu- deteriorated “since and due to his incar- competence, sions as evidence of his with- By at ceration.” PCR 2068. that deterio- addressing testimony out that their in fact ration, he: established that the second meant that Alan had become less ration- competency test was not met. The record al than he had been in the months be- Matheney’s attorneys demonstrates questioning fore his incarceration. His simply “dropped compe- the ball” on the of me less relevant specific to his issue, tency it failing pursue even legal problems the more I saw though they already raised the neces- increasingly he seemed to become un- sity competence of a determination with to focus on in able the real issues his the trial court. The Indiana legal difficulties. He had also become Court’s is unsupported decision wrongs perceived obsessed with the he record, objectively and an unreasonable perpetrating Lisa Bianco was on him. application of the law. Considering Id. that the mental diagnosed by Finally, Dr. the district court’s decision can- illness Morrison at trial progressive support majority’s holding one that in not in this results deteri- oration, question compe- determining that earlier case. In may Dr. in his not be sub- rejected preparing the district court
competent, defense testimony addressing jected [emphasis as not a trial.” added]. Morrison’s competency.” Therefore, subject “accurate Dist. may test a defendant not be According Order at 35. Ct. consult trial unless can both with 2/18/03 court, opined Dr. Morrison district preparing counsel and assist in the de- Matheney incapable of delusions rendered fense, contrary to the district court’s con- The rationally assisting his defense. II, also tention. See “However, then the test does stated: (“A is not N.E.2d defendant require that a defendant be able is tent to stand when he unable to defense, just rationally that he assist understand assist ability to present a consult with possess preparation Ind.Code degree of ration- counsel with reasonable 5-36-3-l(a) (West 1986).”) § Ann. Be- understanding.” al Id. at 36. That seems unsup- the district court relied on an cause meaningless in that it diffi- distinction is ported legal rejecting distinction in cult to conceive of a situation in which only psychiatric testimony on the issue of defendant can consult with rational under- Matheney’s trial its competence, decision is defense, standing but cannot assist in his as a law. erroneous matter of but the district court relied on that distinc- conclusion, testimony the rec- reject testimony tion alone to by Matheney’s attorneys, ord in- wording Morrison. use of that provide and the vestigator psychiatrists testimony rejecting basis for her would be significant, overwhelming, even evidence case, in any given that questionable rationally that he was unable consult import of Dr. clear Morrison’s substantial in his defense. The them assist was that was unable post-conviction court’s reliance isolated operate his delusion and there- outside one to find compe- statements could not real addressing fore assist *16 against weight is clear tence of Nevertheless, even issues case. That evidence. court failed to reconcile its testimony, that approach within literal holding consistent holding the district court’s cannot stand. co-counsel, attorney, investigator First, Dr. in fact Morrison testified that psychiatrist that Matheney rationally was unable to consult any legitimate to assist counsel on unable lawyers with his delusion in that case. issues The trial ability maintained interfered with recognized fact facts of look the realistic the case and issue, failed to tence was follow reality necessary for his what Moreover, at trial. their through testimo- Additionally, defense. PCR at 1590. even ny post-conviction revealed their misun- right if the district court had been in char- derstanding as to of compe- the standards acterizing testimony, Dr. Morrison’s tency, with a belief that he was competent proper opinion would have com- been if he could understand the nature of the Missouri, petency. Drope v. 420 U.S. even 162, 171, 896, proceedings, though totally he was 103 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1975), incapable assisting legiti- them on Court stated that “[i]t mate issues the case. has long been accepted person has standard, met the Strickland demonstrat- whose mental condition is such that he ing probability” that capacity lacks the the na- a “reasonable the re- understand object ture and would have been if his proceedings against sult different attor- counsel, issue, neys pursued consult with and to assist major- accordingly disagree I with the prejudice prong that the ity’s conclusion Therefore, I was not met. re-
Strickland
spectfully dissent. DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
John LAFAYETTE, INDIANA,
CITY OF
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-3624. Appeals,
United States Court of
Seventh Circuit. En Banc 2004.
Reargued Jan. July
Decided
two
notes
court’s
assessment
current
theories.
district
Matheney’s
retrospective
competency was
as
court considered these submissions well.
therefore
will
invalid. We
address
evidence,
examining
After
all of the
argument in turn.
each
concluded,
he had
judge
district
in
III,
First,
succinctly
as our
put,
been
sum
part mary
in
competent
to stand trial
1990.
Indiana
review
establishes,
post-convic
competent,
process
because he
district
both
court
Supreme
court also concluded that it was not
tion trial
and the Indiana
inef-
squarely
assistance
addressed
fective
Mathe- Court
him
an
and found
be
ney’s
pursue
competency
not to
in-
claims
claim
it
competency
nor was
error
determined
his trial
747
light
counsel were not
ineffective. Section
tion of the facts in
of the evi-
2254(d)
applies.
presented
deference
dence
court
State
proceeding.
Second, our case law is clear in
2254(d)
2254(d)
added).
§
(emphasis
§
28 U.S.C.
holding
applicable
“is
even
though
judge
the district
held an eviden-
(d)(1),
Under
we follow the methodology
Walls,
tiary hearing.” Pecoraro v.
286
Supreme
established
Court
Part
(7th
439,
Cir.2002);
also
F.3d
443
see
Val
II of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in
(5th
Cockrell,
941,
dez v.
274 F.3d
954
362, 402-13,
Taylor,
Williams v.
529 U.S.
Cir.2001)
denied,
reh’g en banc
288 F.3d
1495,
(2000),
120 S.Ct.