*2 9, 1996, was sen- Edwards On October Before SCHWELB and prison term an aggregate tenced to serve WASHINGTON, Judges, Associate Novem- forty-five years. of fifteen to On PRYOR, Judge. Senior 12, 1997, after year ber more than one PER CURIAM: filed a imposed, sentence was vacate On June motion to Timothy appeals G. from an order a written issued denying hearing order without a with- which he denied motion vacate his guilty plea. motion to hearing. appeal This followed. out convictions, that we set aside con- asks tending that the time of his government’s proffer. B. The resulting from a suffered mental defect prose- damage, colloquy, not under- During from brain that he did Rule morning proffered early the nature and of his that in the stand cutor complaining a brain that the injury, due to hours of October witness, prostitute flawed initials are plea proceeding fundamentally whose K.W.,2 area of plying he did not the benefit of her trade because offer, government's they entered their 1. The offer to Edwards its This was “wired” to offer to James. pleas during proceeding. the same that the offer each defendant means acceptance by conditioned on the both defen- case, light we think it of the nature of the disposi- government’s proffered dants of the identify complainant name. best not to accepted tion. In this both defendants Streets, 13th and L police N.W. when she was and a woman known to approached by appellant prostitute who passenger seat. The driving a black Ford Mustang. Ac- opened Mustang officers the trunk of the cording prosecutor, of- lying and discovered Mr. James it. The pay fered to in exchange K.W. for a police $50 recovered from the trunk a silver *3 car, sexual act. K.W. entered the and which, K.W., handgun according to resem- Edwards drove her to an alley the rear weapon bled the brandished a nearby department store. Edwards previous night. on the identified K.W. “pulled then a handgun, put silver it in the Edwards and James as the men who had it, victim’s face and clicked ask[ed] raped K.W., According and robbed her. her money.” K.W. handed Edwards $450 Edwards was the driver of the car and in cash. James was the individual who had been hiding in the trunk. prosecutor
The represented further “popped” Edwards then the trunk release C. The colloquy. Rule 11 Mustang,
of the and that Edwards’ co- defendant, James, Gregory S. emerged The trial judge accepted pleas from the trunk. Edwards and James or- Edwards and James a following lengthy dered K.W. into the back seat of the vehi- hearing.4 During the colloquy, Edwards cle, blanket, covered her with a and drove stated, alia, inter that he understood the alley to an Capitol Upon Hill. reaching charges pleading to which he was guilty, as destination, their the two men forced well as to the maximum and mandatory K.W., will, against her to have oral and offenses; minimum penalties for these vaginal sex with each of them. Edwards pleading guilty to these offenses of watch, and James also stole K.W .’s rings, will; his own free that he understood that purse and coat. The men then told K.W. up trial, he was giving right to a well as bushes,3 to hide in nearby some they as the rights that he would have at a trial drove off. right appeal and the a finding guilt;
Following the robbery rape, K.W. attorney; he was satisfied with his Streets, returned to the area of L 13th and and that questions there were no that he N.W. proceeded She then hospital to a wished to judge. prosecutor ask the The Alexandria, located in Virginia where she then described the evidence reported that raped she had been B, supra, as set forth Part I but the requested medical attention. did K.W. not proceedings ran difficulty into some when police contact the until following night, asked Edwards whether he under the somewhat fortuitous circum- agreed prosecutor’s proffer: with the stances set forth below. Edwards, THE Okay. COURT: Mr. is prosecutor proffered in the happened? that what early morning hours of October DEFENDANT I EDWARDS: didn’t twenty-four some hours after her initial car, handgun your have no in the Honor. James, encounter with Edwards and K.W. didn’t, I I handgun didn’t hold no to her Streets, inwas the area of 13th L head. It wasn’t even like that. again N.W. when she saw driving THE you COURT: Did force her to Mustang. the black At point, K.W. you? have sex with reported sighting police, and the No, officers soon located the vehicle a near- DEFENDANT EDWARDS: I by alley. Edwards was the driver’s seat her. emphatic transcript plea proceedings James made this order even more 4. The by showing handgun K.W. a second and re- twenty-eight pages long. this, marking: get "See back in the bushes.” Well, spite affirmative Mr. of Edwards’ one-word
THE COURT: “this act” question answer to the whether I’ve indicated— stated, prosecutor occurred as DEFENDANT Excuse EDWARDS: immediately apparent became that Ed- no, get wrong, me. I mean don’t me she really prose- agree with the had sex me. cutor’s account: attempted explain then weap- you possess THE Did COURT: could not Mr. that he on? if he degree to first sexual abuse No, EDWARDS: DEFENDANT innocent: weapon. didn’t hold you, THE I indicated to Mr. COURT: weapon you THE Did COURT: up something Edwards —let me clear it, she where, could where where she see *4 I you you plead guilty. before Now it? aware of plead care you guilty don’t whether or Yes. EDWARDS: DEFENDANT not, But, up to but in to you. it’s order as we have prosecutor proffered, had guilty, a has to forced plead person seen, handgun in put a Edwards that him person to or to have have sex it, face, mon- and demanded K.W.’s clicked threatened her. weapon some- ey, not was a that there you if guilty would You not be view.5 where within KW.’s not be guilty her for sex. You would whether, asked Edwards was not While abuse, I and degree first sexual couldn’t version prosecutor’s by agreeing that the be you guilty. punish- find That would accurate, previ- his retracting he was person. an I couldn’t let ing innocent account, give did exculpatory ous crime you plead guilty you to a that to withdraw opportunity final Edwards a commit. didn’t that, if he him and warned guilty plea his no in way anybody There’s this room he wished forward with go to you can know whether committed it back to permitted “tak[e] would not be except you if don’t crime responded “yes sir.” later.” Edwards —and have to guilty, jury will decide accepted Edwards’ then you only or not. But the degree whether did first and Edwards found I if way you guilty you could find sexual abuse and PFCV. you guilty. that
stated
were
don’t
D.
withdraw
Edwards’ motion to
know what happened.
explained
you
THE
I’ve
COURT: As
attorney,
On
a new
November
it
at the
of this what means
beginning
by
parents,
retained for Mr. Edwards
you
you
guilty,
be
I asked
whether
to with-
filed a
on Edward’s behalf
motion
you
prepared
were
to admit
were
motion
plea. The
draw
client’s
you
yes.
guilty and
told me
on an evalu-
part
in substantial
based
you
Now are
able to admit that this
Levin, Ph.
by
ation of Edwards
Bronson
prosecutor]
act occurred as
de-
[the
D.,
psychologist.
In his evalua-
clinical
words,
it happen
scribed?
other
that he was
report,
tion
Dr. Levin related
way?
in
by
November
told
Yes, Your
DEFENDANT EDWARDS:
dam-
substantial brain
Edwards suffered
Honor.
beating
an
age
alleged
as a result of
They
THE
did?
COURT:
car
police
high-speed
which followed a
in
injuries
resulted
chase.6 Edwards’
DEFENDANT EDWARDS: Yes.
note, however,
description of
6. Dr.
related
that Edwards did not
Levin
Edwards'
5. We
its conse-
this
and commented
event
plead guilty
robbery.
quences:
in
changes
cognitive
reported
“marked
both his
Dr. Levin further
that Ed-
emotional
functioning”
significantly
deny
aspects
wards had continued to
some
memory.
affected his concentration and
he had
offense
which
entered
Levin,
According to Dr.
guilty,
and that he had reiterated
names,
remembering
including
“trouble
only
his claim of
at the
innocence not
very
dog.”
familiar names like that of his
hearing,
sentencing
but also at
Dr. Levin administered a number of tests
pre-sentence
statement
to the writer of the
IQ
which revealed that Edwards’
was 76
(PSI).8
Levin,
report
According to Dr.
(in
population),7
the bottom 5% of the
post-concussive
Edwards was “still
phase
injury
of his
when he was involved
[h]is scores
two areas were
in deciding
plead guilty
whether or not to
bottom 2% and similar to a retarded
charges.”
reported
to these
expression
level.
impair-
Verbal
showed
that,
injury,
Dr. Levin
since the
“he loses
ability
ment in blocked
express
ideas
meaning
track of the
if
conversations
(“I
it,
apparently
knew
know but
(‘It
they
complicated.
become
don’t com-
out.”).
put
I can’t
Spelling ability is
before’).”
prehend to me like
only equal
grade
to a third
student. On
psychologist
further
told the
that at the
a test
is sensitive to the effects of
hearings,
he was unable to sustain
brain-injury (Trial-Making), he showed
*5
his
process
attention to the
because “[a]t
disruption
both mild
ability
to follow a
first,
just
I
good....
gave
sounded
Then
pattern
impairment
and moderate
in
up
thought hopefully somebody
will
ability to shift sequences, showing diffi-
explain
Finally,
this to me later on.”
after
culty
in
concentrating
circumstances
noting that
attorney
plea,
at the
that
following
involve
more than one
Dyson, Esquire,
apparently
Thomas
idea at a time....
These results are
helpful
been less than
in
specific
explaining rele-
impairment
to brain
and are not
client,9
depression
procedures
due to
vant
being
and issues to his
incarcerat-
ed.
Dr. Levin concluded as follows:
driving
girlfriend’s
was
gun
[Edwards]
his
car
I didn’t click a
at her
We
head.
approached by plainclothed
when he was
police
got upset
her. She
and wanted more mon-
says
identify
who he
did
ey....
money
not
them-
proper-
We didn’t take the
or
frightened
selves. He
ty
gun
became
that he was
from her. The
was in the
the
trunk
carjacking
night
about to become a
victim so he
of the offense the whole time.
off,
sped
losing control of the car at the first
support
plea,
9.In
the motion to
vacate the
By
report,
police
turn.
his
the
then "beat
attorney
by Gladys
filed an affidavit
They
me into the woods.
hit me
so
with
Edwards,
mother,
Mae
the defendant’s
which
many flashlights. They split my
open.
head
sharply
Dyson,
was
critical of Mr.
the attor-
everywhere.
Kicked me
thought
I was
ney
initially
she and her husband had
re-
gonna die.” He believes he lost conscious-
represent
According
stretcher,
tained to
Edwards.
to
briefly
ness
handcuffs,
and was taken on a
in
Edwards,
Dyson
Mrs.
Mr.
did not return calls
hospital
to the
where he remem-
nothing
promptly
explain
did little or
being
pain throughout
body.
bers
options
par-
his client’s
to Edwards or to his
Hospital records indicate that the nose and
fact,
knew, Dyson
fractured,
ents. In
as far as she
never
eye socket bones were
his vision
plea bargain
discussed a
with
until
impaired,
scalp
and there was a
hema-
day
parents
op-
the
of trial. Edwards'
were
Surgery
performed
toma.
to re-set an
posed
entering
plea,
son
Ed-
their
eye properly into its socket. He has had
always
wards had
maintained his innocence.
trouble with his vision ever since.
Dyson
Mrs. Edwards had asked Mr.
to advise
that,
view,
7. Because some of Edwards’ scores were
parents’
her
son
average”
"close to
and because Edwards read
accept
plea bargain.
should not
She
level,
grade
believe, however,
at the sixth
Dr. Levin believed
Dyson
not
that
had con-
IQ
probably
that Edwards'
in the low 80s
message
According
veyed this
to his client.
prior
injury.
Dyson
Mr.
to Mrs.
had told
parents
wards and his
"that the most that our
report:
jail
years.”
8. Edwards told the author of the
five
PSI
son would do in
would be
(1984),
attempt
not
incompetence
This
was due
judge’s
E. The trial
decision.
post-concussive impairment
cogni-
judge
the trial
denied
On June
processing
tive
combined
inade-
in a written order. The
Edwards’ motion
handling
quate
impatient
coun-
judge
on Edwards’ admission “in
relied
sel.
(1)
open court and on the record that
Finally,
be noted that Mr.
it should
despite
giving up
that he
knowing
disability, while significant,
penal-
certain
legal
prevent
him from
entering
does
faced,
ties he
he still wished to
present
new
if the
one is with-
(2)
guilty;
he understood what he
course,
drawn, provided,
present
that
(3)
doing;
any
he did not wish to ask
dysfunction
counsel is
cognizant
questions.”
emphasized
accordingly.
and communicates
dispute por-
hesitate
Edwards did not
Dr.
Relying heavily on
Levin’s evalua
proffer
tions of the
when he
tion,
attorney argued in his
Edwards’ new
disagreed
prosecutor’s
account.
permitted
be
motion
his client should
pointed
also
out that at
plea. Emphasizing
to withdraw his
colloquy,
Rule 11
he had
conclusion of the
continuing
protest
Edwards was
his in
finality
“underscored
nocence,
Ed
counsel asserted
“Mr.
informing
he could still
[Edwards]
pled
despite
inno
his claimed
plea, at that time.” Edwards
withdraw his
spite
cence
[because]
[c]ourt’s
point
at that
that he “wished
had indicated
attempt
Ed
careful
to ascertain
Mr.
*6
to take it
go
try
to
and would not
forward
happening,
what was
understood
the
judge
back
stated
later.”
by pleading guilty
not
did
understand
representation
open
defendant’s
right
he would forfeit his
to
assert
plea proceeding
that he
the
understood
motion,
According
innocence.”
Ed
plead
to
“earned
guilty
and that he wished
wards “did not understand this basic con
In the
verity.”
a strong presumption
brain-injury
cept because of his
induced
view,
unable
judge’s
been
[previous]
with his
limitations combined
presumption.
overcome that
attorney’s
take the
ex
failure to
time to
Dr. Levin’s evaluation of
Turning Mr.
plain
carefully
matters
Edwards.”
wards,
opinion
the
was of the
attorney
Finally, Edwards’ new
claimed
report
“not under-
psychologist’s
the
did
plea
was “motivated
that his chent’s
presumption arising
mine
from
strong
the
fell
advice received from counsel which
un-
plea hearing
the
itself
competence
[Edwards]
range
of the
demand
short
cases,”
of the
and the
charges
the nature
attorneys
derstood
ed of
in criminal
McClur
States,
1848,
plea.”
of his
v.
472 A.2d
1360
kin United
838,
(D.C.),
denied,
report
gener-
as
cert.
the
“far too
469 U.S.
105 S.Ct.
characterized
note, however,
plea,
plea
the
Al
time Edwards entered his
Mr.
We
collo-
the
judge correctly
quy
Dyson
facing
prospect
advised Edwards that
of criminal
years
be
the maximum
could
fifteen
sentence
charges
stealing
from the estate of
life. Mrs.
and her husband had
Dyson later
to disbar-
client. Mr.
consented
that,
their
Dyson
advised Mr.
since
son's head
ment,
(D.C.1997)
Dyson,
re
987 (D.C.1995) al,” States, 288, and he believed that Dr. Levin had ed 656 A.2d 293 (citations omitted). to take into account the Rule 11 failed Finally, judge rejected colloquy. process “It is fundamental to due permit-
contention that Edwards should be
that a defendant who waives constitutional
plea
grounds
ted to withdraw his
on the
do
entering
must
original attorney
that his
was constitution-
voluntarily, knowingly,
intelligent
so
ally ineffective:
States,
ly.” Pierce v. United
705 A.2d
argues
Defendant
...
that his counsel
(D.C.1997)
1086,
Eldridge v.
(quoting
1089
in giving
was ineffective
advice to
(D.C.
States,
690,
A.2d
guilty, arguing that
did not
[counsel]
1992)).
reviewing
guilty plea
whether a
enough
take
time to assure that the
voluntary,
this court examines the entire
But, if
intelligent.
analyzes
totality
of the
record
defendant did understand the conse-
surrounding
circumstances
[cjourt
quences
of his
as the
has
Morgan,
Henderson v.
426 U.S.
did,
determined he
then there was no
(1976).
2253,
96 S.Ct.
II. argues motion. He that his was not knowingly entered and thus was involun- LEGAL ANALYSIS *7 (1) tary plea because at the time of the he Edwards suffering injury filed his motion to with was from a brain that guilty plea draw his year plea more than a after made it difficult for him to follow the imposed. the sentence ap proceedings appre- was Under the understand and and/or rule, plicable consequences pleading guilty; “the court after sentence ciate the of (2) may set aside the of judgment plea proceeding conviction and the was fundamen- permit and tally the defendant to withdraw the flawed because the trial court was plea,” only capacity but this relief is authorized unaware of his diminished mental it required adequately when in order to “correct and thus failed to ascertain injustice.” Super. manifest Ct.Crim. R. whether there was a factual basis for the 82(e). States, plea. McCarthy Edwards’ motion is thus “un v. United 394 tested See a high der standard.” Southall v. United U.S. 89 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 418 (D.C.1998). States, (1969). arguments In Interwoven into these a that trial coun- suggestion order to withdraw the movant must is Edwards’ his only plea constitutionally that ineffective because demonstrate the was sel was manifestly unjust, spend enough helping time but must also show that he failed plea fundamentally either the factual ba- proceeding “the Edwards understand the complete plea consequences flawed such that a for the or the of there was sis miscarriage justice.” plea. of Williams Unit colloquy
For
wards.
review of that
re-
essentially the reasons relied
Our
upon by
judge,
questioned
the trial
we find
veals that once Edwards
the
arguments unpersuasive.
judge’s
accuracy
prof-
The trial
the
factual
of
fer,
careful,
by
of the
Dr.
engaged
denial
motion
informed
the trial court
in a
it
although
Levin’s evaluation
was based
probing, patient,
colloquy
and extensive
(1)
on
primarily
his own
observations
in an effort
with Edwards
to determine
and
conversations with
factors whether there was a factual
for ac-
basis
(2)
to which we
great
accord
deference.
cepting
plea;
whether Ed-
consequences
understood
At the
important
outset it is
to note
trial
did not
pleading guilty. The
court
reported
while Dr.
that
Levin
his evalu
rush in
factual basis
inquiry
its
about the
ation that
sustained brain
pains
great
for the
plea and the
took
damage
functioning
that
him
at a level
left
clearly
understood
ensure that Edwards
retardation,
borderline
mental
Dr. Levin
entering a
giving up by
what
he was
incompe
opined
never
that Edwards
plea.
fact,
to enter
tent
a
Dr. Levin
evaluation, which was
Given Dr.
his
Levin’s
by indicating
concluded
evaluation
recollec-
assistance,
part
based in
on Edwards’
proper
patient
large
with
there
plea
mind
no
tion of
entering
would be
to Edwards
his state
barrier
ear-
hearing
year
over one
granted
place
another
if the trial court
that took
lier, it
consistent
motion to withdraw this one.
have been more
would
if when
argues
injury
trial
erred in
brain
failing
purported
a
hearing
agreed
to hold
to determine
he
whether he
by
whether
asked
the court
competent
a
had in-
to enter
once the
government’s proffer,
dicated,
indirectly,
issue was
to the court’s
directly
raised
attention
or
either
agree
prop
the record. While we
with the
he was
or that
not understand
osition that
the issue of
proffer
“where
a defen
because
the factual
by
confused
competence
dant’s mental
been
In-
[has]
for him to follow.
complicated
was too
record,
raised on
court must
stead, Edwards,
the ex-
listening to
after
specialized hearing
a
conduct
determine
gov-
proffer
tensive
factual
made
competence
a defendant
who seeks
ernment,
portion of
only that
questioned
Hunter v.
guilty.” that he had
proffer
alleged
factual
States,
Nonetheless, before proceeding further appreciate consequences entering with the colloquy Rule 11 the trial judge pleas charges. these two On suggested that speak with his twenty-three no less that occasions trial counsel so that he could address with court, colloquy with the Edwards was any him further concerns Edwards had asked whether he understood what he was plea. about the very After a brief discus- doing rights giving up. and what he was table, sion at Edwards, himself, counsel occasion, On each Edwards answered affir- indicated that ready proceed he was matively. may While Edwards have ques- again questioned accuracy tioned the factual proffer about whether agreed he by made government, he at no time government’s proffer regarding the judge’s facts of the claimed be confused the trial case. agreed While he at first explanation giving that the of what he was government’s previous proffer was accurate, upon up by entering guilty. further Given questioning by the trial judge prior about his in the involvement with a involvement criminal weapon, disputed only justice system, he relatively the fact that as well as the had held a gun prior to the victim’s lenient treatment he head. Im- received for his convictions, portantly, longer he no contended that was not unreasonable for the force was not used nor did he continue to trial to view his claim that he was contend that voluntarily. K.W. acted confused about of his pleaded constructively possessed to unarmed first doubt that Edwards degree necessary night sexual abuse so it was not a firearm on the of the offense. Ed- *9 holding gun for him to admit to a to the head wards’ admission that he knew there was a car, view, plea the plain of victim in order for the to be firearm in the in and within reach, factually supported. respect With to the was sufficient evidence from which charge, possessory PFCV beyond because it is a of- a reasonable fact finder could find a fense, government only required constructively the was reasonable doubt that Edwards proffer facts possessed weapon during rape from which a reasonable fact a the and rob- beyond bery finder could conclude a reasonable of K.W. 990 11 inquiry, applying reasonably the Rule a ob-
plea strong as insufficient to rebut here, jective of presumption verity given colloquy the state- litmus test we the ments he made to the find that Edwards has failed to show that Williams, plea proceeding. 656 A.2d plea proceeding fundamentally was (internal omitted). at 294 citations holding plea flawed or that to his Edwards unjust. manifestly would be our Given in- Finally, accurately trial court judge’s personal deference to the trial rec- potential formed Edwards of sentence and, proceedings ollection of the after a ultimately an gave he faced record, thorough are review of we plea opportunity to withdraw his at the not judge the trial convinced proceedings. judge close of the The trial in denying abuse its discretion plea, was convinced that at the time of the motion. was competent to enter the on the judge’s based conversa- Affirmed. him, tions with as his as well observations nothing of and we see in this SCHWELB, Judge, Associate record that lead us to a would different dissenting: conclusion. one, I easy not Although the issue is an find that Because we the trial my colleagues’ am agree unable to denying did not judge err not entitled conclusion that Edwards was plea, motion to withdraw his we also to a motion withdraw hearing on his conclude the trial court did not err respectfully dissent. Accordingly, denying, hearing, without a motion, part, based his Edwards has claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. attorney on his that his allegation required a hearing Such here nature of ineffective. The constitutionally where, law, aas matter of could content, not a motion its is determined prejudice prong not meet the of Strickland caption. its Wallace v. Warehouse Cf. Washington, v. 466 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 730, 801, Employees A.2d No. 482 Union 2052, (1984), 80 if a L.Ed.2d 674 even (D.C.1984). is there 804 Edwards’ motion thirty day minute discussion on of trial § fore 23-110 cognizable under D.C.Code disposition of case discuss the (1996), 32(e), and an as well as under Rule a through is considered outside “un hearing required evidentiary thus range competence compe wide accorded conclusively less the files and records show tent defense counsel. As the trial can no facts the movant establish “[tjhere observed, correctly is no constitu warranting relief.” Southall v. United if a tional ineffective assistance counsel (cit States, (D.C.1998) 716 A.2d 188 knowingly intelligently defendant 110(c)). alia, ing, § inter D.C.Code 23— his trial rights.” waives my recognize, As is fun judge, although colleagues “[i]t
In this the trial admittedly process damental to a defendant unaware of Edwards’ mental due condition at time of the nonethe- who waives constitutional in enter in a engaged ing plea voluntarily, less must do colloquy so careful, considered, intelligently.” Maj. op. appropriately knowingly, States, here, To 705 thorough. prevail (quoting Edwards must Pierce (D.C.1997)) manifestly A.2d El unjust (quoting show that would be States, dridge pro- stand and that v. United (D.C.1992)). If have ceeding fundamentally competency flawed such issues record, complete trial court miscarriage that it resulted in a been raised on “the justice. say specialized hearing hind- must to de might While we conduct competence sight that the trial could asked termine the defendant plead guilty....” who Hunter v. probing questions during even more seeks
991
(D.C.
States,
806,
categories
548 A.2d
810
among
two
where he scored
1988)
States,
(quoting
2%,
v.
Willis United
468 lowest
Edwards functioned at the re-
1320,
(D.C.1983)); accord,
A.2d
1323
Indeed,
tarded level.
Edwards could not
Pierce, supra,
where it is alleged that an individual is
credited,
Dr.
assessment
then
Levin’s
is
retarded,
mentally
the trial court must
practical purposes
for all
mental
consider that factor
determining
when
comparable
capacity was
to that of a child.3
whether an individual
“has
mental
reported
Dr. Levin further
that Edwards’
capacity to
necessary
achieve the
under-
plea attorney “impatiently instructed Mr.
Hunter,
standing”
guilty plea.
of a
thinking
Edwards to leave the
to him.”
Masthers,
supra,
(citing
come across more rational and focused expect
than might one from an individual supposed as Dr. handicapped Levin be, and this even may
wards to have been apparent judge, who was
more
able to observe the defendant
proceedings. the time entered But at that Edwards C.L.M., Appellant. In re apprised not been No. 98-FS-349. impaired damage Edwards’ brain or his cognitive functioning.4 Mentally retarded Appeals. District of Columbia Court impaired cognitive and others with people, Argued 2000. Feb. abilities, predisposed are often to answer 15, 2001. questions way designed in a Decided Feb. understanding, lack of so that conceal their and communi- language [their]
“even when normal, appear abilities
cation to be
questioner give should extra attention
determining whether the answers are reli- W. Ellis and Ruth A. Luckas-
able.” James Mentally
son Retarded Criminal Defen-
dants, 414, 428 53 Geo. Wash. L.Rev.
(1985). reasons, For these we have held judge may rely exclusively
that the observation of the defendant finding
as a basis for that his alleged regard. to withdraw this his motion plea attorney fault in plea that his was at