United States v. Kowalczyk, No. 14-30198 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter the district court conducted two competency hearings, the district court found defendant incompetent to stand trial and referred defendant to a federal medical center for further evaluation. On appeal, defendant challenged the second commitment order, arguing that the second competency hearing violated his constitutional rights. The court held that, as a person whose competence to stand trial was in question, defendant could not legally waive his right to counsel; thus he was entitled to be represented by an attorney at his competency hearing. Therefore, the district court was required to provide defendant with an attorney during his competency proceedings. Applying the meaningful adversarial testing standard, the court concluded that the district court's appointment of amicus counsel satisfied this requirement of the right to counsel. Accordingly, defendant was sufficiently represented by counsel at the competency hearing to overcome his denial of counsel claim. The court further concluded that any potential abuse of discretion in not allowing defendant to speak at a hearing on supplemental briefing was harmless, there are no clear procedural violations under 18 U.S.C. 4241, and there is no reason to reassign this case to a different district court judge. The court affirmed the judgment and remanded.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial and referring him to a federal medical center for further evaluation, and remanded. The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 4247 creates a non- waivable right to counsel during competency proceedings, and that the defendant was entitled to be represented by an attorney at his competency hearing. The panel held that the “meaningful adversarial testing” standard applies to assessing whether amicus counsel, appointed by the district court, satisfied the requirement of the right to counsel, and concluded that the defendant’s amicus counsel did provide meaningful adversarial testing. The panel rejected the defendant’s claim that he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his competency hearings, and held that any potential abuse of discretion in not allowing the defendant to speak at a hearing on supplemental briefing was harmless. The panel held that because multiple competency evaluations and determinations are permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 4241, the panel did not commit process error when, after finding the defendant incompetent for the first time and referring him for treatment, the district court held a second UNITED STATES V. KOWALCZYK 3 competency hearing and ordered him committed and treated a second time. The panel saw no reason to reassign the case to a different district court judge on remand.
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.