Court filing
Indictment — United States v. Eric Shibley (Dkt. 57, W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cr-00174)
Filed November 20, 2020 in Shibley; one of 139 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-11-20 |
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC · Doc. 57 · 2020-11-20 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Government’s Response to Court Order Re: Defendant’s Health - 1
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, STE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Honorable John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC SHIBLEY,
Defendant.
NO. CR20-174JCC
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S HEALTH
(Dkt. #49)
The government files this response to the Court’s order to brief what measures, if
any, should be taken to address Defendant Eric Shibley’s health. Dkt. # 49. The
government does not oppose Defendant’s apparent request for a hearing and psychiatric
evaluation to determine his mental competency.
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2020, the grand jury returned a 15-count indictment charging
Defendant with wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering related to a scheme to
submit false and fraudulent applications for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.
Dkt. #31.
Defendant is currently detained pending trial at FDC-Seatac after Judge Peterson
revoked Defendant’s appearance bond on September 28, 2020. Dkt. #29. On November
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC Document 57 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 5
Government’s Response to Court Order Re: Defendant’s Health - 2
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, STE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20, 2020, Judge Peterson denied Defendant’s motion to reopen detention (Dkt. # 46) after
a hearing.
Trial was initially scheduled for December 14, 2020. Dkt. #37. On Monday,
November 16, the Court held a status conference with the parties and discussed the
upcoming trial date. At this status hearing, counsel for Defendant raised concerns about
his ability to be ready for the upcoming December trial date. Defendant’s counsel also
raised concerns related to Defendant’s current mental health, including that Defendant
was confused, panicked, and hearing voices.
On November 18, 2020, in response to the Court’s order, counsel for Defendant
filed a sealed response detailing more concerns about Defendant’s mental health, as well
as details about his physical health. Dkt. # 52.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal standard for ordering a competency evaluation
18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) states:
At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and
prior to the sentencing of the defendant, . . . the defendant or the attorney
for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental
competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall
order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable cause to
believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease
or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable
to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him
or to assist properly in his defense.
18 U.S.C. § 4241(b) directs that after the request for a hearing on the mental competency
is granted, “the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the
defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the
court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).”
B.
The government does not oppose a hearing and psychiatric evaluation
to determine the mental competency of Defendant
Defendant’s sealed filing regarding his medical status appears to be a request for a
hearing and psychiatric evaluation to determine the mental competency of the defendant
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC Document 57 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 5
Government’s Response to Court Order Re: Defendant’s Health - 3
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, STE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. The government does not oppose such a request, in light
of the statements made by Defendant’s counsel at the November 16, 2020 status
conference and the statements about Defendant’s mental health put forward in
Defendant’s filing. These statements, taken together, suggest that “there is reasonable
cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or
defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand
the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his
defense” under 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
Should the Court agree with Defendant’s request for a hearing and psychiatric
evaluation, the government has provided a proposed order for a hearing and a psychiatric
evaluation of Defendant to determine Defendant’s mental competency and excluding the
time required to determine Defendant’s competency under the Speedy Trial Act. See
Attachment 1. The time should be excluded as “delay resulting from any proceeding,
including examinations, to determine the mental competency … of the defendant” within
the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1).
C.
Defendant’s request for an independent medical/psychiatric evaluation
In his response, Defendant requests that any medical or psychiatric “evaluation be
done by professionals not employed or habitually contracted by FDC Seatac,” but does
not identify such a professional. Dkt. # 52 at 3-4. 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) governs
psychiatric examinations ordered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and states:
A psychiatric or psychological examination ordered pursuant to this chapter
shall be conducted by a licensed or certified psychiatrist or psychologist, or,
if the court finds it appropriate, by more than one such examiner. Each
examiner shall be designated by the court, except that if the examination is
ordered under section 4245, 4246, or 4248, upon the request of the
defendant an additional examiner may be selected by the defendant. . . .
Unless impracticable, the psychiatric or psychological examination shall be
conducted in the suitable facility closest to the court.
A “suitable facility” is one “that is suitable to provide care or treatment given the nature
of the offense and the characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(2).
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC Document 57 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 5
Government’s Response to Court Order Re: Defendant’s Health - 4
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, STE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant is not entitled under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 or 4247 to select the examiner;
the Court is empowered to appoint the examiner. “[A]n accused, ordered to have an
examination by a court appointed expert, is not entitled to have present his own expert or
his own counsel.” United States v. Mattson, 469 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir. 1972). And
district courts who have ordered psychiatric evaluations have noted that the Bureau of
Prisons is well equipped to evaluate competency. See, e.g., United States v. Sampson, 12
F. Supp. 3d 214, 217 (D. Mass. 2014) (“The BOP has experience and expertise in the
evaluation of competency, and it performs such evaluations on a regular basis. . . . The
court expects that the BOP’s Examiner will remain, as required, neutral and detached.”)
(quotations and citations omitted); see also United States v. Loughner, 770 F. Supp. 2d
1026, 1027 (D. Ariz. 2011). Especially in light of the fact that Defendant has not
identified an expert to conduct the examination, the government submits that the mental
health professionals at FDC-Seatac, who are well-equipped to handle issues such as the
ones presented here, should perform the evaluation requested in this case.
As to his request for an evaluation of his physical health, Defendant has provided
nothing in his response suggesting medical professionals at FDC-Seatac have even
conducted a medical evaluation related to his general physical condition, and Defendant
has proffered no evidence to suggest that they would not be impartial and professional in
their evaluation. Furthermore, Defendant has not identified any medical professional
who could perform this evaluation. The government opposes any request by Defendant
to receive an outside medical evaluation until Defendant provides an explanation of why
it is necessary.
//
//
//
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC Document 57 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 5
Government’s Response to Court Order Re: Defendant’s Health - 5
U.S. v. Eric Shibley, CR20-174JCC
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
700 STEWART STREET, STE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III.
CONCLUSION
The government does not oppose Defendant’s request for a hearing and
psychiatric evaluation to determine his mental competency. Should the Court order that
Defendant be evaluated for competency, the government submits a proposed draft order
and asks that the Court exclude the time under the Speedy Trial Act.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN T. MORAN
United States Attorney
DANIEL S. KAHN
Acting Chief, Fraud Section,
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
s/ Brian Werner
BRIAN WERNER
Assistant United States Attorney
s/ Laura Connelly
LAURA CONNELLY
Trial Attorney
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC Document 57 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wawd.290911.57.0.pdf
- Size
- 185,446 bytes
- SHA-256
- e7533f86b4b9370ec43386ea5bac539861403c8223760cc5aac5f4c00b476d74
- Original
- PACER (login required)