United States v. Zavesky, No. 15-3039 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the information before the district court was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to investigate further defendant's mental competency; while the preferred practice would include the presence of the defendant when it appears likely that the defendant and the lawyer are at odds about the necessity of a competency evaluation, the court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the process and procedures undertaken by the district court were sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process; defendant's asserted lack of notice and opportunity to be personally heard would constitute, at most, a trial error; even assuming a constitutional violation, defendant has not demonstrated prejudice that resulted from the committal process; the committal process did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial where defendant managed to work through three different lawyers, requested motions to continue, and failed to identify any prejudice caused by any period of delay; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A), specifically excludes from consideration delay resulting from an examination to determine mental competency; defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. On this record, the information before the district court was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to investigate defendant's mental competency; while the preferred practice would be to have defendant present when it appears likely that the defendant and his counsel are at odds about the need for such an evaluation, under the circumstances of this case, the process and the procedures undertaken by the district court were sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Due Process Clause; defendant's asserted lack of notice and opportunity to be personally heard before an evaluation was ordered was, at most, a trial error and harmless; 18-month delay between when defendant appeared on the charges and the commencement of trial was occasioned by his exam, defendant's three changes of counsel and defendant's five motions for continuance and did not rise to level of a Sixth Amendment violation; Speedy Trial Act specifically excludes from consideration delays resulting from mental competency exams and there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act; conviction for both receipt and possession of child pornography did not violate Double Jeopardy as the indictment and the proof involved different images and dates for each offense; no error in denying defendant's motion to suppress as he was not in custody at the time he made the statements; officers had probable cause to detain defendant's truck based on the background information in the case and defendant's statements, and the warrantless seizure of his truck and laptop did not violate his rights.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.