Watts v. Singletary

KRAVITCH, Bеfore DUBINA CARNES, Judges. Circuit eyes your closed. You have KRAVITCH, Judge: THE COURT: Circuit your neck or your head down on You have that his due petitioner contends A habeas pretty obvious to your and it seems chest infringed he was when process rights were you everybody in the courtroom court for murder state tried and convicted sleeping. trial. We hold incompetent to stand while tr. at 130-31. prove to a violation Trial petitioner has failed a to procedural due judge sleep, the continued to As Watts hearing his substantive due colloquy with Watts initiated similar incompe- tried while process right not to be subsequent once on each at least tent. per- estimating the day trial. After proceedings through centage recent I. judge slept, the trial Watts had under the influence if he was ask Watts tried in Eugene In Carl Watts always replied that he was any drugs; Watts by jury of court and convicted Florida state explanation of his pressed for an not. When second-degree murder. awake, inability stay on one oсca- to Watts day trial. through much of the five sleeping, suggested that he was sion judge record- the first On that both praying characterization —a of Watts’s behavior: ed his initial observation attorney strongly doubted. judge and Watts’s for the like to make a statement “I’d also occasions, professed to hav- Watts On other during the entire voir at this time that record sleeping, for his disavow- ing explanation no conducted, since that I’ve dire examination illness, the use of physical in addition to ing 5:00, to and it’s 20 minutes about 3:30 medication, alcohol, drugs. response ease, Watts, has Mr. the defendant bench, indicated question from the Watts tr. at at counsel Trial sleeping been table.” mental never been treated for that he had illness. jurors day, prospective The next after two attorney point expressed at one Watts’s express concern judge approached inability keep client frustration at his their sleeping would threaten that Watts’s awake: ques- impartial,1 ability to remаin record, For the and for MR. BLOSTEIN: his continu- about the cause of tioned Watts this, my thought is my protection own on ing somnolence: sleeping. I have that Mr. Watts is also put thing First I’d like to THE COURT: days him three had to wake over the last for the record is that Mr. Watts on the including today up numerous occasions slept through 90 day in a row has second you pray- if Watts] [addressed questioning ... this morn- percent of the attempted you notice that ing didn’t even Watts] Mr. Blostein [counsel you up. to wake up. I’m had to wake has on occasion you occasion I saw THE On one COURT: like jurors all seen this. I’d sure even and he never hit him the shoulder questions at this time. to ask some budged. He never moved. you the influence of are under Mr. Exactly. doing I’m MR. BLOSTEIN: today? any drugs or alcohol or medication represent Mr. under I can to Watts best No, sir. WATTS: putting in. he’s me the circumstances any particular rea- Is there THE COURT: Nevertheless, Watts’s Trial tr. at 337-38. you sleeping through this why are son raised the issue Watts’s never probably going which is serious trial competen- requested at trial or your life? effect cy hearing. No, sleeping sir. I’m not WATTS: through it. arguments, closing Prior attempt ensure in an

questioned Watts ultimately panelled. jurors im- two 1. Neither of these testify Trial tr. at 529. could not be awak- his decision not that he understood deliber- ened to stand as retired to on his own behalf: ate. doing right. You all THE COURT: and sen- In the interim between conviction

Okay. You remember last week when tencing, psycholo- Watts was examined your attorney put couple on for witnesses gist. informed her that he had been you; you do remember that? (since using drugs years for seven he was Yes, sir. WATTS: sixteen)2 smoking and that he had been your I think mother came THE COURT: night while crack cocaine the trial at your testified and sister? According on bond. to the trial he was out Yes, WATTS: sir. in- judge, psychologist attributed Watts’s stay staying up you I want to understand awake trial to his THE COURT: right testify thinking in this case you nights taking that crack well as “as your crying.”3 doing explained Now indicated to you if want. lot of Watts you going psychologist that not that he had not admitted us last week were just taking drugs cheek relatives testify and I wanted to double court to because his upset make that is what and he you present sure that were did not want with do; you you that not want to want to do them. ease;

testify is that true? in this sentencing hearing, Watts’s counsel At the That’s correct. WATTS: they had sus- judge both said that during taking drugs pected had been Watts you this over THE Have talked COURT: (Given agreed that had parties trial. lawyer? your use of trial not mention Watts’s before Yes. WATTS: murder, drugs the time of the around you Are satisfied with THE COURT: obviously were Watts’s your lawyer? as past. drugs in the aware that Watts used WATTS: Yes. out on bond They also knew trial.) expressed himself Watts at 482. Trial tr. jury’s been in- verdict had concern At the conclusion sleeping: fluenced jury as instructed the follows: be- The made the decision WATTS: instructions, I get I into the Before They my sleeping disorder---- cause Mr. to make a comment about like figured I care. didn’t throughout sleeping and his obvious Maybe right. I told you’re THE COURT: trial. I know how that don’t most consid- regard and not to them not to any you going I’m to tell affected that in their verdict. er jurors you must you your oaths under you But throw that out can’t WATTS: way. you any that to affect not allow human mind. slept and why Mr. has don’t know right, probably You are THE COURT: what the you either and no matter don’t you talk- rational Mr. Watts. how know, was, if we that has even did reason judg- got good ing now. You’ve now some guilty or nothing to do with whether he’s Too bad thinking You are rational. ment. charge he’s here on guilty happen. had to that all this today. trial for at 584-85. Trial tr. your to affect you must not allow that So up- and sentence going to tell conviction in this case and I’m Watts’s decision currently appeal, any way and he is held on direct you not even discuss se, filed Proceeding pro Watts incarcerated. your deliberations. average; did not exhibit drug pro- at least that he abuse 2. been enrolled in a Watts had delusions; hallucinations, gram and that psychosis, in 1984. suffering any major mental was not from Watts did psychologist determined that The tr. at Trial 586-87. illness. damage; that his intellectual have brain own behalf testify on one’s dis- and the corpus federal petition for habeas penalty for that, remain silent without or to claiming because he court in trict doing he was denied so.” slept through most of his judge’s — a result of the due -, -, Oklahoma, Cooper v. hearing and as failure to order (1996) 1373, 1376, L.Ed.2d 498 and conviction while of his trial result Nevada, Riggins (quoting judge agreed. magistrate A 139-40, 112 118 L.Ed.2d 479 report recom- magistrate judge issued a (1992) J., (Kennedy, concurring)). The com granted petition be mending that Watts’s then, one. It petency inquiry, is a functional rep- Defender to appointed a Federal Public capacity the criminal defendant’s focuses on adopted court him. The district resent sufficiently to his own defense to contribute report recommenda- magistrate judge’s ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‍and, ultimately, serves to allow a fair trial conviction and sen- tion and vacated Watts’s society protect both defendant by the State. pending tence retrial against erroneous convictions.4 apрeals. State now The issue Watts’s procedural and sub- implicates both II. right. The dis- dimensions of stantive first, concluded, pro- that Watts’s trict court The Due Process Clause of process rights under Pate v. cedural due prohibits the crimi Fourteenth Amendment Robinson, 375, 836, 15 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. prosecution a defendant who is nal of (1966), infringed the L.Ed.2d 815 competent trial. A defendant to stand compe- a trial court’s failure to conduct state present incompetent if he lacks “sufficient and, tency hearing on initiative sec- its own lawyer a ability with his to consult ond, due that Watts’s substantive understanding” degree rational reasonable of he was in fact rights were violated because “a well as a factual understand or rational as will address tried while We Dusky proceedings against him.” ing of the procedural and substantive claims the 402, States, 362 U.S. 80 S.Ct. v. United turn.5 (1960) (internal 788, 789, quo 4 L.Ed.2d 824 omitted). Supreme As tation marks A. Procedural Due Process emphasized, recently has Court that a criminal de Pate established “Competence to stand trial is rudimenta- presump process rights are part main of fendant’s due ry, upon depends fails to tively violated when a state trial court to a fair rights those deemed essential initiative, conduct, a on its own including of effective assis- summon, counsel, doubt about hearing to in the face of sufficient rights to tance of witnesses, competency.6 This circuit confront, the defendant’s to cross-examine functional, charges. Obviously, usefully explained rise to criminal 4.The ABAhas that, accomplish require competency inquiry defendants a minimal trial-related nature of understanding pro- of the nature of criminal follows: ceedings, importance presenting of avail- incompetence finding to stand trial A mental defenses, consequences possible and the able illness, illness, may physical mental arise from acquittal. conviction or of either de- disability; retardation or other or mental Mental Health Standards ABA Criminal Justice disability; etiology velopmental other so or 1986). 7-4.1(c) (2d сommentary § & ed. inability long it results in a defendant's counsel or to understand consult with defense in state these claims were exhausted Both of proceedings. court, petition, and in Watts’s habeas included decided the district court. purpose the rule the fundamental Because nontriability incompetent defendants] [of only “presump- process violation is 6. The due promote factual determinations accurate interpreted Pate to tive” because this circuit has guilt by enabling to eval- or innocence post-deprivation process suffice in some allow present to factfin- uate and available defenses order a ders, If the trial court fails to circumstances. should have at least the intel- defendants hearing warrant- competency ed, at trial when one is necessary capacity to consult with a lectual may attempt prove giv- the state still factual occurrences defense about objective against adеquately him assist counsel in has from Pate standard derived conducting doubt, that, have no trigger the trial court’s defense. We order to furthermore, hearing, the trial obligation that both to order attorney, aware of raising information a “bona Watts’s who were Watts’s court must have history drug his release on competenc defendant’s use and bond fide doubt” as to the throughout y.7 Singletary, suspected v. F.2d Watts’s James denied, Cir.1992), contemporaneous sleeping was related to cert. 510 U.S. (1993); drug use. had Watts 126 L.Ed.2d 214 But even admitted in (11th open stay court Dugger, Fallada v. that he could awake at Cir.1987). night up smoking information include trial because he was all Relevant behavior, crack, necessarily irrational this would not be sufficient evidence of a defendant’s require hearing. prior opinion; medical Pate demeanor at “[tjhere course, are, im no fixed or Fallada, court noted that a invariably signs mutable indicate (in case, drugs pre defendant’s use inquiry fitness need further determine not, se, scription per drugs) does necessitate Missouri, proceed.” Drope competency hearing, “merely but is a rele 162, 180, 896, 908, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 factor.” Recognizing vant 819 F.2d at 1569. (1975). competency inqui the functional focus stated, case, ry, has to es the court in Fallada “To In this failed be enti present hearing fide to tled to a a defendant must tablish that there was bona doubt as demonstrating dosage competency during giv the trial. It is true evidence sufficiently conspicuously through en him has affected adverse large part proceedings: ly as to raise a the tran doubt consult appellate script and to have a rational under supports the state court’s through standing finding “slept 70% him.” that Watts about State, 1569; v. F.2d at see also Pedrero v. of his murder trial.” Watts 537 819 Wain (5th Cir.) 1383, 699, wright, (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989). But 590 F.2d 1387-88 So.2d 699 (information a prohibition against drug was ad there is that defendant no constitutional require hearing), to Pate the trial conviction of defendant who dict insufficient denied, 943, 299, cert. 444 100 S.Ct. 62 pay fails to attention court —whether out U.S. (1979). fear, confusion, indifference, boredom, The fact that a or L.Ed.2d 310 defen (whether proscribed taking drugs dant is sleepiness that defendant also can —unless prescribed) during trial should alert nature of the not understand the trial, Dusky, competent petence to 362 [citation at defendant was in fact the time 402, jury competency pro hearing, 789] U.S. at S.Ct. at would not trial at so 80 a nunc tunc subject inquiry, of their long inquiry be able to observe the into the defendant’s a reliable made; testify solely expert have to witnesses would competency can still be burden is on 1562, printed contained in the rec- Singletary, 957 from information ord.”). v. F.2d state. James Cir.1992), denied, (11th 1570-71 11 cert. & n. 262, 896, years almost Given that Watts was tried nine 126 214 510 U.S. (1993); 114 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1564, ago, at the time of trial— Dugger, and that his condition Fallada v. 1568 Estelle, 1017, drugs (11th Cir.1987); despair use of Zapata 588 influenced both v. F.2d (1979). post be difficult recon- ex ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‍is over murder —would post, 1020 If a reliable evaluation retried, agree with the district impossible, struct ex we court must be if then the defendant meaningful pro unlikely competent that "it is nunc or else Falla to stand released. da, 1568; hearing competency ... could be had at this Zapata, tunc 588 F.2d at 1020. 819 at F.2d late date.” cautioned, however, Supreme has Court fide doubt" comes from the competency 7. The term "bona attempts determine retro- pro hearing, in Pate. The Pate Illinois statute considered spectively by of a nunc tunc means adopt fide doubt” Court did "bona favorable circum- even “under stances,” the most standard; simply found may this state constitutional "inherent difficulties” which face Missouri, constitutionally adequate. None- Drope standard theless, be render 420 U.S. them futile. 909, (1975); 896, man- doubt” standard has L.Ed.2d "bona fide 95 43 103 S.Ct. Pate, opinions aged of this to insinuate itself into at at 843 see also commonly quoted ("[W]e as the nom- emphasized difficulty circuit and now previously is determining an inal constitutional standard. retrospectively accused’s com- issue, really in competency the defendant’s was competency potential court to for a Pate itself, competency there was no need not, doubt and necessitate need Wainwright, may hearing. information convince Adams v. hearing. Other denied, Cir.1985), hearing is not neces- cert. a formal the court that F.2d reasonably certain that the defen- sary L.Ed.2d 805 to be requisite capacity (1986). (For reason, to understand dant has a defense the same him and commu- going on around what is hearing must be request for a Pate counsel’s lawyer. nicate with his seriously by judge.) In this taken the trial case, attorney the issue did not raise Watts’s Here, only apparent effect Watts’s request a Pate Watts’s inability to drug use was his intermittent Although the com hearing. he did make at trial. Watts was awak- stay awake When ment, doing my represent Mr. “I’m best to ened, provide, as the state he was able putting the circumstances he’s Watts under found, ... “lucid and not irra- appeals court in,” implies the context of this remark me questions from the bench. tional” answers attorney primarily con that Watts’s Certainly, at 699. 537 So.2d sleeping prejudice cernеd that Watts’s understanding pro- demonstrated jury. point during the trial did At no him, repeatedly ceedings against as he ex- attorney suggest the defense Watts’s anxiety being on trial for mur- pressed about suffering for lack of Watts’s assistance. There is no reason to believe that der.8 engaged in not have the same Watts could A criminal Competency is contextual.9 colloquies attorney sort of coherent generally represented counsel defendant strategy with the defense as he did about conducting responsibilities in has limited sleeping problem. about his primarily, recognizing and relat- defense:10 and mak- ing relevant information to counsel legal competency primar Because reserved ing the few trial-related decisions assisting ily role in a function defendant’s (i.e., guilty, plead defense, for defendants whether conducting the defen request whether to whether to position dant’s the best testify). present and whether to compe the defendant’s determine whether participate in the The defendant need not tency suspect. Accordingly, failure of de decisions, which he leave bulk of fense counsel to raise the issue (how jurors, entirely dispositive, is evidence that to counsel to select while not 476-77, 484, entirely in his own hands. Now that counsel is 8. Trial tr. at 556. The dissent See points that Watts "could not have had a constitutionally guaranteed out understanding in all serious crimi- against proceedings however, factual cases, the common law basis for nal during asleep. the time he was Without him” rights largely expansive competency outdated. debate, inviting metaphysical we believe it is Winick, "Incompetency See Bruce J. to Stand that Watts did have such an under- sufficient Benefits, Trial: An Assessment of Costs and and awake, standing while he was even if the nature Reform,” Rutgers Proposal a for 39 L.Rev. proceedings against the him was not at all of times thoughts. (1987). scope analysis the of 260-61 Modern of awake) (sleeping the his or focus of by competency rights guided must be Black- by contemporary understanding a of stone but During peri- attorney-client relationship. 9. It also historical. the formative Richard J. the See competency Bonnie, in mid-seven- od of the doctrine Competence Defen- "The of Criminal century England, virtually all defendants teenth Dusky Beyond Drope," 47 dants: and U.Miami represented charged with serious crimes them- (1993); L.Rev. 552-53 see also Oliver Wen- California, 422 selves at trial. See Faretta v. Holmes, Law, The Path of the 10 Harv. dell 806, 823, 2525, 2535, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ("It (1897) revolting L.Rev. to have (1975) ("While right developed early a to counsel a of law than that so it no better reason for rule misdemeanor, and in of in civil cases cases IV."). Henry laid in the time of was down prohibition con- the assistance of counsel prosecutions felony tinued treason."). centuries in for course, placed on the defen- 10.Of the demands Eng- This rule remained in effect in significantly, depending century, though may vary on the dant land well into the nineteenth case, counsel, apparently cоlonial America. complexity capacity abandoned in of 824-27, During S.Ct. at 2536-37. See id. at competency inquiry The is neces- other factors. period obviously this it was critical that the de- sarily fact-specific. competent, for his defense at trial was fendant call, necessarily the and how to facts dictate same conclusions which witnesses whether cross-examination, competency. as to what motions conduct decisions). make, In and similar tactical example, Wainwright, For in Whitehead v. case, the monitored this Watts (5th Cir.1980), court af- particular confirming throughout the firmed court’s the district conclusion understood and stood his de- that Watts petitioner, Whitehead, habeas in- had been verifying testify, cision competent trial. to stand Whitehead attorney. communicating with his agitated been and nervous the first might speculate Trial tr. at 482. See We day morning day of second much was unable to be of use to two-day attempting murder to dis- attorney monitoring testimony of his charge attorney to take several times and providing responsive witnesses and informa- part in the cross-examination of witnesses. that could be useful for cross-examina- tion He was given then an antihistamine and two attorney tion. If had encountered Watts’s (two prescription tranquilizers doses of each testimony, problematic unforeseen or howev- hours). result, during As a within two er, no believe that he there is reason to day afternoon of the second of trial White- requesting not have awakened could Watts — drunk, sleepy, staggering, head “seemed necessary explain if recess discuss —to court, (cid:127)glassy-eyed.” He fell nothing the matter.11 record reveals slurred, speech he could not later provid- incapable of suggest that Watts was making remember statements attributed input necessary of to mount an the level transcript. him in See Whitehead adequate defense.12 Wainwright, F.Supp. 899-901 (M.D.Fla.1978) facts). (reciting determination, be case, of particular displayed this nоne capacity it looks to the cause behav- play fact-specific pre-medication role Whitehead’s aberrant defendant to Moreover, could be case-by-case ior. whereas Watts requires assessment. 162, 180, drug-free lucidity con- 908 awakened into Drope, 420 U.S. —as (“There are, day course, firmed on each no fixed or immutable in- was under chemical invariably trial —Whitehead signs which indicate need pro drugs fluence of most of the second inquiry to determine fitness to further ceed.”). then, rendering him apparently surprisingly, Not numer comprehend addressing compe unable opinions ous defendants’ even when tency other circuits fail to communicate from simply too rigid was awake. situation is Watts’s establish standard meaningful applied uniformly across cases. dissimilar to Whitehead’s for could be this, the analogy than presenting superficially to be drawn.13 More Nor do cases similar Thus, 13.Irrespective distinguishing facts view the dissent’s concern our Whitehead, "justify inconsistency among competency the trial and conviction a defen- had been rendered comatose on the dant who analogizing single to a case some cases makes Watts, a trial" is baseless. Unlike such eve of arbitrary. Compare United what with Whitehead capacity lacked the could show that he defendant 8, Rinchack, n. States v. 820 F.2d attorney’s requests respond to his structured Cir.1987) (no (11th prob process 1568-70 due during course of the trial. for assistance trying from brain lem with defendant who suffers (Watts judge’s replied rationally ques- the trial dizziness, seizures, damage causing disorienta trial). And of a each course tions on tion, amnesia) clearly, inability and to think defendant, would lack unlike comatose (11th Kemp, Thomas v. 1325-26 nature capacity to of the the proceedings understand (Pate 1986) hearing required for defen Cir. during trial. him kept for a dant witness locked in closet who had Watts "was dissent asserts that unable 12. The corpse nine-year-old jumped week on during anything to his defensе at all contribute inability presence, victim her exhibited This, however, majority does trial." the not differentiate Watts with his before communicate from most other criminal in some throughout raised sat trial fist defendants, nothing to who likewise contribute salute). sort majority through vast own defenses their the proceedings. however, this is not a difference that makes only serves to comparison of the two cases inqui- previously, As discussed even need for the difference. illustrate the fact, sentencing, case-specific, given not for- that ry revealed to be functional slept through much of his trial as rule-driven. malistic and smoking night, the rec- result of crack at sum, the trial are convinced that In we that ord—devoid of substantial evidence process due to make judge afforded all adequately Watts could not understand competent to reasonably that sure Watts proceedings or assist counsel his defense— evaluation of Watts trial. Clinical unequivocally generate a dоes not substantial hearing simply was not neces- formal Pate to stand trial. doubt about judge to make the function- sary the trial competent. grant of the writ of that The district court’s al Watts was determination corpus habeas is thus REVERSED. say judge’s not to the trial This is necessarily the correct determination was CARNES, Judge, dissenting: Circuit was, fact, one, Whether Watts however. separate question, to which competent is issue in this case is whether the Con- permits we now turn. the trial and conviction of a stitution whose condition is such that he is defendant during seventy going on not aware of what B. Due Process Substantive five-day percent of his trial. though was not entitled Even I think not. thinks so. information hearing to a Pate based on the independent an due he has available I. process right not to be tried and convicted Pate, 383 U.S. at while See disagreement discussing my Before asserting right, 86 S.Ct. at 838. pre- about the issues proving by bears the defendant burden might helpful appeal, sented in this preponderance of the evidеnce that he was why agree discuss we all that one issue is James, incompetent at the time of trial. 957 presented. explanation An is in order be- F.2d at 1571. We have warned clearly cause that issue seems so raised “ ‘[cjourts corpus proceedings in habeas is, the facts of this case. It but the State of claims of mental incom should not consider argue not to the issue to us. Florida chose the facts are not petence to stand trial where speaking The issue am of involves the self- positively, unequivocally, and sufficient to condition induced nature of Carl Watts’ dur- real, substantial, clearly legit generate a ing trial. capacity the mental imate doubt as to going Watts did not know what was Sheley Singletary, petitioner.’” and, trial most of his murder accord- Cir.1992) (11th (quoting F.2d counsel, to his was not able assist Estelle, F.2d Bruce v. time, because Watts Cir.1973)). This caution resonates with the stayed up night every night all difficulty making competency determina obtaining smoking crack cocaine. At the post, as with our reliance on tions ex as well time, twenty-three year old readily policed procedural dimen the more addict, having hooked on cocaine crack been right. due sion years. He had shot his best friend seven case, having pre- only shotgun to death with a In this difference —after pared hours earli- procedural a sandwich for a few between the merits argument respect the rele er —as a result of an over ten substantive claims is with twenty bill. Watts determining in whether dollars worth of dollar' vant factual bases: actually shooting the claimed self de- incompetent, we are not admitted during the the fense. He was out on bond limited to the information available to scared, depressed and anxious and he was state trial court before and done, pros- evaluating procedural claim. what he had and about his we are in the about So, James, pects. Watts did what crack addicts do: 957 F.2d at 1572. For

1291 less, scrounging argue the not all time he could State chose to self-induce spent he the smoking ment or waiver to this It is not for and crack. Court. around mentioned in the State’s initial brief in its or do lied about it. Crack addicts And Watts brief, reply attorney representing the lot, by Astonished Watts’ bizarre that a too. tenaciously the State resisted our efforts to though the the sleeping behavior explore argument. the at oral For that issue point if he judge periodically asked him blank reason, majority not the does address drugs, point taking been and Watts had issue, say majority cannot judge suspected told him no. The blank See, e.g., wrong failing for to do Harts so. go. not lying, but let it He did Lemacks, 950, (11th v. 953 field examined, did and he not revoke order (“We Cir.1995) clearly note that issues that bond, (hopefully) cut off his which would have designated initial ordi brief his access crack. narily (quotation are considered abandoned.” Nonetheless, gun no one to Watts’ held omitted)); marks and citation Marek v. Sin smoking him to run around head forced 1295, ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‍2 gletary, 62 F.3d n. Cir. one night each of the trial. And no crack 1995) (“Issues clearly raised the briefs repeatedly forced to lie abandoned.”), petition are considered for Thus the facts frame about condition. 1996) (No. (U.S. 22, filed, March 95- cert. incompe- self-induced the issue whether al., 9105); Wright, et Federal Practice or, differently put it teney is to treated be (1977) (“An § n. 1 Procedure way, own actions another whether one whose argued issue not in the brief of the raised throughout incompetency caused appellant may waived and thus be considered be while has waived his not to tried by will not be noticed entertained Arguments be can made both a defendant appeals.”). court Whether interesting it is ways, and it is an issue. But incompetency induces his own can suc who presented to not one that has been us. cessfully it as a bar to trial an issue assert day. another I turn now to issue that ar- appeal, the of Florida On direct State us, presented day. issue intentionally had gued because Watts he was barred induced condition being complaining about tried while from II. appellate court

that condition. Florida contention, holding rejected accepted person that a long “It has been Supreme previously Court fore- Florida lacks condition is such he whose mental State, 699, 700 it. v. 537 So.2d closed Watts capacity to understand the nature 1989) (Fla. State, (citing Lane 4th v. DCA him, against object proceedings (Fla.1980) (“Intentional 1022, 1026 388 So.2d counsel, in prepar- with to assist consult by does not avoid or action a defendant subjected ing his defense not be necessity applying the test eliminate the Missouri, Drope trial.” pres- has the sufficient whether defendant (1975). 896, 903, A 43 L.Ed.2d 95 S.Ct. assist counsel with his defense ent mentally competent to stand is not defendant proceedings against to understand unless has “a rational as well him.”)). understanding factual States, Dusky v. appellate in the him.” United The Florida court ruled 402, 402, 4 L.Ed.2d anyway, affirming favor in this case State’s (1960) omitted). The (quotation marks district court conviction. federal Watts’ not, however, quarrel does nоt statement and the could have did State ac- self-inducement, precepts, and it of these fundamental argue or waiv- chosen all, knowledges er, that Watts was After we are no more position to us. Nonetheless, percent seventy of his trial. holdings on the Florida courts’ bound that it constitu- concludes an issue than those courts would such tionally permissible try him that condi- holding of this bound an earlier Court issue. Nonethe- tion. federal constitutional some

1292 holding reaching mentally incompetent its al- does embrace though asleep during most of his murder concerns that a defendant be able to make mentally competent major was nevertheless may decisions that determine his fate. tried, discounts the constitu- wrote, be As Blackstone one becomes who importance tional of a defendant’s “mad” after the commission of an offense him, proceedings against understand the arraigned should not be for it he is “because It minimizes a defen- to aid his defense. plead not able to to it with that advice and by characterizing dant’s role in his defense ought.” 4 caution that he William Black responsibilities,” involving as one of “limited stone, *24. But the rule ex Commentaries “few trial-related decisions reserved for de- beyond pleading tends concerns. Blackstone (i.e., plead guilty, fendants whether wheth- also wrote that if a defendant becomes mad request er to to be whether tried, pleading, after he should not “for be present testify).” at and whether to Id.; how can he make his defence?” see also Majority op. at 2675-76. The Hale, 1 M. Pleas of the Crown *34-*35 that, “[t]he then reasons because defendant (same). prohibition against trying a de participate in the bulk of trial need deci- fendant whose condition renders him unable sions, counsel,” entirely left participate important in his defense is an capable making a defendant those few safeguard adversary sys “fundamental to an strategic only can decisions defendant justice,” incorporated tem of which is into the capable “providing make is the level of 172, Drope, Due at Process Clause. 420 U.S. input necessary adequate an to mount de- 904; Cooper 95 S.Ct. at see also v. Okla fense,” competent and therefore is to stand —homa, -, -, 1373, 116 U.S. S.Ct. Majority op. trial. See at 2676. Under the (1996) (“We 134 L.Ed.2d 498 have re view, majority’s once a defendant has made peatedly consistently recognized decisions, strategy presence those few at incompetent criminal trial an defendant trial, or at least his awareness of what is process.” (quotation violates due marks and happening during is of no constitutional omitted)); Robinson, citation Pate v. 383 significance. disagree. 375, 378, 836, 838, U.S. 86 S.Ct. 15 L.Ed.2d requirement that a defendant be men- (1966) (“[T]he conviction of an accused tally competent long-held to stand trial is a person legally incompetent while he is vio See, e.g., tenet of common law. Medina v. ”). process.... lates due 437, 444, California, long distinguished ped Faced with the (1992) (“The 2577, 120 L.Ed.2d 353 rule that igree right not to be tried while incom incompetent a criminal defendant who is petent, majority struggles to diminish the required to should not be has importance right, struggle of that and its deep heritage.”); roots in our common-law produces Citing a remarkable conclusion. 903; Drope, 420 U.S. at 95 S.Ct. at article, suggests law review whose title States, Youtsey v. United 97 F. analysis, majority engages cost-benefit Cir.1899) (recognizing mental re- “[mjodern analysis” using “contemporary that, quirement and the same effect are “[t]o understanding” authorities”). and reaches the conclusion all the “The com- common-law expansive that “the common law basis for petency philosoph- rule did not evolve from competency rights largely outdated.” Ma punishability, ical notions of rather jority op. n. 9. The deep by- roots in the common law as a rights recognized in courts of Blackstone’s absentia; product trials in ban us, defendant, are too liberal for it seems. mentally though But see incompetent — at -, сourtroom, Cooper, physically present in the is in (“No questions reality opportunity one the existence of the fun afforded no to defend invokes____ States, right petitioner himself.” damental Stone v. United F.2d (9th Cir.1966) (quotation significance open 507 n. 5 Nor is the of this marks omitted). against try- question.”)1 and citation The rule that, majority opinion quotes proposition revolting 1. The Holmes for the "It is to have no better

1293 justify its evolving of stan- The does crabbed speak “the We sometimes reading competency requirement, a decency progress mark of a of that the dards reading protection to which no a de- affords society,” always thought I it maturing as who fendant such Watts was unable supposed understood that the evolution anything contribute at all to his defense dur- have be is the first time I forward. This Supreme ing the of trial. The the suggested that our heard it standards enough has us that “it is not Court instructed way contemporary progressed such a that [is] ... that the defendant oriented time understanding deny citi- an Amеrican place some recollection of [has] important right the zen full benefit of an trial Dusky, at events.” 80 at U.S. S.Ct. Englishmen early at as as guaranteed least (alteration original) (quotation 788-89 century. the understand- seventeenth Some omitted). Instead, inquiry the marks critical ing. progress. Some present into has sufficient is “whether he to consult with his with a majority’s opinion today The the reduces degree of rational understand- reasonable important safeguard against being tried whether he has a rational as well as —and incompetent merely re while to one that understanding proceedings factual quires able to make a that a defendant be Id. against him.” at 80 S.Ct. at 789 decisions, apparently strategic it is few omitted). added) (emphasis (quotation marks majority if are enough for the those decisions place, oriented time and Watts was neither begins. even But see made before lawyer during his nor able to consult with — at ---, at Cooper, S.Ct. percent seventy five-day murder trial. (“After making profound choice 1381-82 He could not have had factual understand- plead guilty, the defendant who whether to proceedings against him ing of the upon ... also called proceeds to time, cognizant he was of because concerning myriad make smaller ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‍decisions else, anything of save those importance of the course of defense. perhaps for what he have been dream- rights condition, these and decisions demonstrates ing. Because of his sufficiently de- competence determination of unable contribute an erroneous fense. component of our threatens a fundamental justice system fairness of criminal basic —the might infer from Contrary to what one marks cita (quotation the trial itself.” reading majority opinion, Watts’ omitted)). Apparently, under the ma tions him whenever he not communicate with could view, necessary be

jority’s decisions can thought necessary, and did not made, time, they any and once made at Although verify the rec- that counsel could. any incompetency is foreclosed. claim of sometimes could ord shows counsel majority’s position quickly reduces Thus the Watts, it that on more awaken also shows would, example, justify It to the absurd. one than occasion of who trial and conviction a defendant up, court was unable to wake of comatose on eve had been rendered point, one record. At noted that fact trial, provided only he had communicat didn’t “[Y]ou said to Watts: defense counsel strategic you necessary attempted deci I to wake on the notice that ed views even observed, one occa- up,” and the “On to his counsel beforehand. sions rights, certainly not about a it was laid criminal trial a rule law than that so Henry reason for down in the of Majority op. at time of IV.” to an adver- so "fundamental criminal trial Holmes, (quoting Oliver Wendell 1288 n. 9 justice,” Drope, sary system 420 U.S. at Law, 10 Harv.L.Rev. Path of incorporated as into the S.Ct. at Holmes, (1897)). quоte. nice But That at-, Clause, Cooper,-U.S. Due Process said, things as techni- had in mind such "the he disparage the use Nor did Holmes 1376. initio, as it called trespass ab cal rule as determining part history explain attempted a recent Massa- said, Indeed, law. in the same article Holmes, (footnote supra, at 469 case.” chusetts containing ing large study extent law is still to "The rational omitted). He was not think- citation Holmes, supra, history.” study speaking any an about accused’s you lawyer formulating I saw hit him in the shoulder and assist his sion he cross-exami- nation, budged.” even moved. He never he did not hear of the never because most (Trial 337-38). testimony. Tr. at As the con- cedes, “Watts could not be awakened to Watts been able to contribute as the retired deliberate.” Ma- generally lawyer’s cross-examination his jority op. at 2671. strategy days In in advance of it. hours or infer, is it might Nor accurate to as one way, the same he was able to make certain majority opinion, from the that when counsel strategic in advance—such as his decisions exasperation, doing “I’m stated the best I testify, decision not to he communicat- represent can to Mr. under Watts the cir- lawyer ed to his more than a week before in,” Majority cumstances he’s me putting op. However, began. pres- Watts was not simply, primari- at that counsel was or ently lawyer during able his to assist jury might ly, preju- concerned that the presently of his trial. Nor was he by sleep seeing through diced his trial. any strategic able to of deci- reconsider his just sentencing, eight days At which occurred sions, such as decision not his to take counsel after defense made the stand, him; light testimony against of following representation judge: to the that, he was not do able to because he did through my I went a trial where client testimony against hear most of the him. me, literally help was unable to whatever. I was unable to even talk to him because majority’s holding The in this case is con- up. wake him That couldn’t was the rea- trary to decision in this Court’s Whitehead why. son (5th Cir.1980). Wainwright, F.2d 223 567-68). (Trial Tr. at case, Whitehead, The defendant, did not tak- had any express accuracy doubt about Benadryl allergies, en his and also the statement, appel- counsel’s did the nor state tranquilizers Valium “Roche 66.” With considering court. After late record as a permission, tranquilizers the court’s those whole, crediting defense counsel’s state- prescribed by had been a doctor exam- who ment, the district court concluded that “there ined treated him ner- Whitehead and for a lengthy periods during stages were critical during vous condition the trial. As result murder trial was [Watts] his unable to medication, taking Whitehead became attorney.” (Report his Magistrate assist extremely drowsy during one afternoon of 19).2 Judge factfinding That is two-day Wainwright, trial. Whitehead v. court, certainly clearly and it district (M.D.Fla.1978). F.Supp. 900-01 erroneous. lawyer Whitehead’s later testified could he prosecution not recall presented thirteen the nature extent of his wit- commu- against Watts, many during nesses whom de- nication with his client the afternoon occurred, killing the scene thought scribed where of the second he However, or his actions near of it. necessary. the time had been as much as was He did eyewitnesses there no to the remember actual that Whitehead had his head on killing, testify. other than who did not of him table front at times afternoon, that, presented evidence a close issue about toward the end of the self defense —the man shot he was much had rested his head in arms he, nature, larger than family had a violent much of the Id. at was time. 901. Two advancing apart- on him Watts’ own inside members testified that had Whitehead shooting drunk, sleepy, when the staggering, ment occurred. “seemed Because issue, glassy-eyed.” “punch” of the closeness of that and the nature His testimony, Watts’ assist his awaken him. Id. Whitehead himself later testimony with the asleep facts as un- testified that he had fallen folded was critical. Yet Watts unable to defense table. Id. magistrate judge's report

2. The and recommen- the district court. adopted approved entirety dation in its inconsistency testimony, among competency the district cause “the a result As defendant, analogizing single to a case cases makes court in Whitehead held that arbitrary.” op. Majority at 2677 somewhat groggy been because had true, proposition, n. This if ill for bodes been unable to one-fourth of had Surely the rule of law. our circuit is not law sufficiently lawyer, consult so confused and inconsistent that decision factual under- lacked a sufficient rational or i.e., law, by rule analogy, has been reduced him, proceedings against standing of the arbitrary” process justi- ato “somewhat that incompetent to tid- had been therefore throwing up simply pick- fies our hands and granted relief. al. The district court habeas ing comport seems to our a result that with appeal, affirmed Id. at 902-03. On we the majority If cor- feelings at the time. the is holding court’s that the defendant district precedеnts rect that our so inconsistent incompetent on the afternoon of the had been arbitrary,” following that them is “somewhat trial, grant of his and affirmed its second out en re- then the situation cries banc by saying: of concluded relief. We view, it. case can be a this vehicle we are convinced that the state trial While if in the Even our decisions this area of petitioner a judge did all he could to assure majority be- law are as inconsistent as the dismissing the fair short however, lieves, inconsistency is no there date, starting at a later the district anew specific it in case. relates issue finding sup- incompetence is court’s today. today, nei- At not until Before least by the record and must be left ported Court, I any nor court that ther this other undisturbed. of, am had ever held that a defendant aware Whitehead, 609 F.2d at during going is who is not aware what majority attempts deal with the The competent his is to stand trial. most of binding precedent of the Whitehead decision holding in Whitehead was that a defen- Our ways, convincing. of which is two neither groggy, sleepy, asleep is dur- dant who Whitehead, First, majority suggests that two-day is ing his one afternoon of case, been in mate- the defendant that holding trial. That incompetent to stand shape in this rially worse than Watts was majority’s hold- be reconciled with cannot because, case, majority says, Whitehead someone who in this case that is comprehend the “unable to was during most of his trial is not attorney when or even communicate consciously A is not aware defendant who Majority op. at 2677. That was awake.” seventy percent of during happening what is would be news Whitehead’s drug- in a his whether because he is the case. White- to the courts decided asleep, ra- stupor simply cannot induced that, opinion, lawyer in his testified head’s pro- factually tionally understand the hap- had been aware of what was Whitehead time, react nor can he ceedings courtroom, thought pening in the and that he com- testimоny or evidence and any other with he had been able communicate White- lawyer about it. municate with his necessary during head as much (5th Estelle, 568 F.2d 1128 In Ferrell v. ques- his condition was afternoon which withdrawn, Cir.), Cir. 573 F.2d 867 Nonetheless, the F.Supp. at 901. tion. 1978),3 grant affirmed the district court’s we had been court held that Whitehead district petitioner who to a became of habeas relief we affirmed. incompetent to stand with the time the murder deaf between attempts way charged and the time second he was the onset binding precedent period of the White- In the brief from with the trial. deal learn his Ferrell did not by suggesting that there can deafness head decision sign language. lips to understand binding precedent in this area of the to read be no provide ste so, the court to His counsel asked implies, be- That is law. binding be- upon precedent, it here but discuss in Ferrell was withdrawn 3. Our decision discovery petitioner reasoning persuasive three facts had died and the cause was released. Be- before decision months cause was thought-provoking hypothetical. pose such withdrawn, the Ferrell decision “pretty nographers contemporaneously the time sure” who could that he was spoken (Trial 564, 566), using transcribe words trial. drugs Tr. at and the judge request. denied the We affirmed judge did not Watts’ believe denials. As the grant Although of habeas relief. Ferrell sentencing, stated on the record at lawyer able to communicate “everybody a witness that was to Carl’s con- (by exchanging notes), from time to time suspicions proba- duct had some he was important was therefore able to make strate (Trial bly drugs.” taking some Tr. at kind defense, gic regarding decisions he was 567). say, in Suffice it to view of all of the contemporaneously not able to understand circumstances, it seems to me that the testimony case, him.4 In this had, only actually should did inability Watts’ “to consult with his compe- have “a bona fide doubt” as Watts’ degree with a reasonable rational under tency to stand trial. standing,” and lack of “a obvious rational as understanding well proceed as factual IV. ings,” Dusky, 80 S.Ct. at I dissent from the Court’s reversal of the profound was at least as as Ferrell’s. grant district court’s habeas relief. We by Although ‍‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‍supported binding prece- should affirm. dent of the decision Whitehead Ferrell, opinion my position withdrawn dependent Instead, upon of them. either logic:

it simple rests on this A defendant contemporaneously

who is unaware of what going on most of his trial does not TEMPORARY UNIFORCE PERSON- have a rational as factual as well understand- NEL, INC., Services, Inc., Uniforce occurring, occurring, what is as it is Plaintiffs-Appellants, present ability and lacks the to consult with attorney during response and in NATIONAL COUNCIL ON Therefore, COMPENSA- to its events. the trial and convic- INSURANCE, INC., TION a Florida not tion of a defendant who suffers from such a profit corporation, National condition is I Council unconstitutional. would affirm Compensation Insurance, the district granting court decision an unincor- porated entity, relief for the violation of his substantive due business National Work- process right mentally tried Compensatiоn Pool, to be while ers’ Reinsurance an unincorporated entity, business Does 1- 3, Defendants-Appellees, III. Liberty Company, Mutual Insurance Trav- Because conclude Watts was tried Company, elers Insurance Insurance incompetent, while which violates his sub- Company America, of North Defen- rights, process stantive due unnecessary dants-Appellees. for me to decide whether violation of his procedural rights due also occurred No. 95-4589.

because the trial did not conduct a Appeals, United States Court of hearing into Watts’ to stand tri- Eleventh Circuit. al. July 1996. However, I do note knew addict, drug knew he was bond, behaving out on strangely knew he was was told defense counsel

4. The did contemporaneously Court in Feirell not reach the Ferrell the issue of under- incompetency deprived proceedings. whether Ferrell’s substantive, him of The Court concluded distinguished procedural, rights from "Ferrell’s reduced below the minimum,” process. due Court conceived other alter- constitutional because the district natives, (who stenographers explore possibilities. besides would have court failed such other trial), given slowed down the that would Id. at

Case Details

Case Name: Watts v. Singletary

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Jul 18, 1996

Citation: 87 F.3d 1282

Docket Number: 95-4403

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.