Court filing
Status Update Regarding Competency, Restoreability, and Civil Commitment of Evan Edwards — United States v. Evan Edwards (a/k/a Ian…
No. 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP · Doc. 234 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID
1382
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP
EVAN EDWARDS
STATUS UPDATE RE: COMPETENCY, RESTOREABILITY, AND
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF EVAN EDWARDS
The United States of America by Roger B. Handberg, United States Attorney
for the Middle District of Florida, by the undersigned AUSA, in accordance with this
Court’s Order dated October 8, 2024 (ECF NO. 226) hereby files this briefing.1 As
more fully detailed below, the government does not contest the defendant’s
incompetency, and does not object to the admission of all mental health reports for
the purpose of the Court making the competency, and restoreability, determination
under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2). Further, the government has made preliminary
1 As an initial matter, the government objects to the filings being made under seal.
There is a common law presumption of public access to judicial records. Nixon v.
Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), Callahan v. United Network for Organ
Sharing, 17 F. 4th 1356 (11th Cir. 2021), United States v. Rogers, No. 6:23-cr-7-RBD-
RMN, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178692, 2023 WL 6464110 (M.D. FL, Oct. 4, 2023),
United States v. Kaczynski, 154 F.3d 930, 931 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding, over the
defendant's objections, that certain media companies could access redacted versions
of a psychiatric competency report that was sealed based on the defendant's privacy
interests). The government notes that its filing contains no personal identifying
information (PII) or confidential mental health information. The District Court has
previously found the defendant incompetent, and those records are therefore judicial
records. See ECF No. 136.
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID
1383
inquiry into the procedures and substance of any 18 U.S.C. § 4246 civil commitment
procedure at FCI Devens, and the District Court in Massachusetts. Upon the
Court’s determination of any outstanding competency issue, and the collateral
restoreability issue, the government does not object to the Court making any
appropriate preliminary 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2) and § 4246 referral, or non-referral
determination.
I. Background
On December 7, 2022, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against the
defendant, Evan Edwards, charging him with Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Bank Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2,
False Statement to Lending Institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 2, and
Visa Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). The sophisticated scheme involved
multiple frauds to procure more than $8 million in funds from the Federal
Government.
ASLAN International Ministry, Inc. (ASLAN) was originally established in
Ohio on June 16, 2005. On June 5, 2018, Dr. Evan Edwards, on behalf of ASLAN,
filed an application to conduct business in Florida as a Foreign Not For Profit
Corporation. In the application, Dr. Evan Edwards was listed as the registered agent,
Chairman, and President of the business, Joshua Edwards (Evan Edwards' son) was
listed as the Vice President and a Director; Dr. Joy Edwards (Evan Edwards'
daughter) was listed as the Secretary and a Director; W.G. was listed as the Vice
2
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID
1384
Chairman, and M.B. was listed as a Director. The application indicated that the
purpose of the business was "religious." See Verified Complaint, United States v.
Approximately $5,698,846.38 Seized from Bank of America Account number 898116276448
Held in the Name of Church of Florida, Inc., 6:20cv2269 (M.D. FLA).
On January 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd determined
that 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.” (Doc. 50 at 1 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a))). Accordingly, Magistrate
Judge Kidd appointed a doctor to examine Defendant and render an opinion
regarding his competency to proceed to trial in this matter under 18 U.S.C. §
4241(b). (Id. at 2). See ECF No. 136, pg. 2.
On July 7, 2023, Dr. Miriam Kissin authored a competency report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 4241(b). Dr. Kissin opined that the defendant was incompetent to stand
trial, and diagnosed defendant Evan Edwards with Major Neurocognitive Disorder
(Demntia). See Kissin Competency Report dated July 7, 2023, pg. 7, attached as
Exhibit A, under seal until any competency related proceeding. According to Dr.
Kissan’s report, and the other records reviewed, the defendant had no significant
medical or mental problems prior to July 8, 2022, when he was brought by family
members to the Emergency Department at Advent Health New Smyrna Beach
Hospital. Kissan Report, pg. 3. He was reported to have not eaten or drank for two
days, mumbled incoherently, and had become progressively weak. According to his
3
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID
1385
family's reports, they had been spending every day at the beach under direct sun. His
daughter had reportedly been feeding Mr. Edwards salt and lemons, with the
intention of increasing his fluid intake and enhance alertness. It was this “salt and
lemon” poisoning that was the basis of the defendant’s cognitive decline. Later
obtained medical records indicated that the defendant’s daughter claimed to have
provided the defendant with six teaspoons of salt in a maple sugar mixture. Based
upon a subsequent medical review by Neurologist Dr. Ryan Darby, that amount of
salt, and mixture, would be completely inadequate to elevate the defendant’s sodium
level to the point tested at the Advent Health New Smyrna Beach Hospital on July 8,
2022.
On August 3, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hoffman Price held a hearing to address
the findings in the competency report issued by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and
the parties were ordered to submit additional briefing on the applicability of the
restoration procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). (Doc. 104 at 1; Doc. 105 at
1). The parties fully briefed the issue, and Magistrate Judge Hoffman Price issued the
R&R committing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for the
mandatory restoration process under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). That commitment was
upheld by the District Court. See ECF No. 136.
On September 12, 2024, Dr. Chad Brinkley authored a competency report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Dr. Brinkley opined that the defendant remains
incompetent to proceed. Brinkley Report, pg. 36, attached as Exhibit B, and
4
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID
1386
submitted under seal until any competency related proceeding. Further, Dr. Brinkley
opined:
There is no indication he has been or ever will be able to achieve the same
level of cognitive functioning he had prior to his 2022 hospitalization in any
domain. It is likely he will continue to experience some level of cognitive
impairment for the remainder of his life. Based on the available information,
this evaluator believes Mr. Edwards' symptoms are unlikely to improve to the
point where he could become competent in the foreseeable future.
Brinkley Report, pg. 37. Notwithstanding those conclusions, Dr. Brinkley noted:
The question of whether he may be malingering symptoms for secondary gain
had been previously raised. Although there medical/organic findings
consistent with dementia have been identified, it is possible Inmate Edwards is
also engaging in behaviors to make himself appear sicker than he is. It is
possible that drinking hand cleanser with the objective of inducing repeated
vomiting may be motivated by this objective.
Brinkley Report, pg. 10. Evidence of significant cognitive improvement and
variability of tasks of daily living also demonstrated, the government maintains is
suggestive of the possibility that Mr. Evan Edwards may have malingered symptoms
of exaggerated cognitive decline. Dr. Brinkley further noted:
Since the time of Mr. Edwards arrest, however, there has been variation in his
level of impairment and what he seems to be capable of doing. At times he
presents as mute. At other time he has demonstrated he can speak in brief
sentences. In some circumstances, Mr. Edwards has been described as
unresponsive. In other situations, he has been able to participate in brief
interviews with significant effort. Dietary staff at FMC Devens observed Mr.
Edwards willingness to eat seems to be better when his mood is good than
when he is angry. Mr. Edwards has been described as unable to take care of
himself in the past. Nursing staff at FMC Devens, however, have observed he
can dress himself and ambulate slowly when he chooses to do so.
5
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID
1387
Brinkley Report, pg. 32. During his restoration proceedings at FMC Devens, the
defendant was also observed engaging in malingering behavior. In administrative
notes taken at Devens, the staff noted that the defendant:
is under telemetry monitoring due to suspected selective mutism for secondary
gain versus dementia versus catatonia. Suspected malingering versus dementia
and inability to recognize thirst or hunger or participate in conversation or
self-care. With certain times with some staff members, he is speaking and
answering questions and at other times he is non-verbal.
Brinkley Report, pg. 11. Nevertheless, Dr. Brinkley diagnosed the defendant with
Major Neurocognitive Disorder (Due to Another Medical Condition, With
Behavioral Disturbance, Moderate-Severe Impairment). Brinkley Report, pg. 31.
The government notes that evidence adduced during the competency hearing
of Evan Edwards’ co-defendant (and son Joshua Edwards) casts further suspicion
that the symptoms presented by the defendant may not accurately reflect his true
cognitive capacity. On July 10, 2024, Agent Javier Mondejar testified in the
competency hearing of Joshua Edwards, and testified about the contact between the
defendant and his son, Joshua Edwards. Agent Mondejar testified:
A. He was escorted inside a cell with his dad. They started talking. I couldn't
hear very well what they were saying, but they started talking one or two
sentences, and then they switched to whispering in each other's ears.
Q. Okay. At some point that day, did Mr. Joshua Edwards' behavior change?
A. When we were in initial appearance.
Q. And can you describe that for the Court?
A. After coming back upstairs from U.S. Marshals, I was sitting at a table with
you and the other agent. I observed Josh. He stood up. And they were standing,
6
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID
1388
talking to the judge, and he was looking up at the ceiling, not paying attention,
not talking to the magistrate, not acknowledging the lawyer or the judge.
Transcript of hearing, July 10, 2024, United States v. J. Edwards, No. 6:22-cr-00201-
WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla.) pg. 82. The testimony by Agent Mondejar at the competency
hearing of Joshua Edwards was offered to show the transformation of Joshua Edwards
from a person engaging in normal interactions and conversations to complete mutism
and an unwillingness to interact at all after contact with the defendant. The
government suggests that the inverse is applicable as well: it could have been the
defendant Evan Edwards’ conduct and conversations with his son that resulted in
feigned incompetency by the son. That level of interaction is potentially inconsistent
with the level of cognitive decline and deficiency demonstrated by the defendant at
different points throughout this litigation.
It is for these aforementioned inconsistencies in conduct and behavior,
interwoven with a sophisticated Covid fraud scheme, that led the government to
retain Dr. Ryan Darby. On October 8, 2024, the Court held a status conference in
which the government made a request for the appointment of Dr. Ryan Darby, a
neurologist, to review the medical and mental health records of the defendant and to
render an opinion as to his competency and/or restoration. ECF No. 226. The
Court agreed and appointed Dr. Darby to review the available medical records, but
established a strict deadline of October 29, 2024.
Although Dr. Darby did not interview or evaluate the defendant himself, he
did have access to the defendant’s medical records, including copies of the original
7
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID
1389
medical records from Advent Health New Smyrna Beach, dated 7/8/2022 through
8/25/2022. Dr. Darby was able to confirm at least two aspects of the defendant’s
cognitive limitations germane to this Court’s inquiry, and the government’s
overriding concern: (1) the defendant’s sodium levels as recorded by the hospital
upon admission on July 8, 2022 are extreme and consistent with hypernatremia2
which can cause brain injury, and (2) the defendant is not likely to recover a
cognitive capacity consistent with competency to stand trial. Dr. Darby also
suggested that the family’s self-report that they had tried to rehydrate the defendant
with orange slices, increased salt, and water mixed with 6 teaspoons of salt in maple
sugar would not be sufficient to raise the defendant’s sodium level to 183, the
reported blood-sodium level. Dr. Darby’s Report dated October 28, 2024 is attached
as Exhibit C, and submitted under seal until any competency related proceeding.
II. ARGUMENT
A criminal defendant cannot be tried unless he is mentally competent. Godinez
v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 113 S. Ct. 2680, 125 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1993). Mental
competence is the key to a criminal defendant's ability to unlock the value of his
constitutional trial rights. Indeed, without mental competence, a defendant cannot
take advantage of "the right to effective assistance of counsel, the rights to summon,
to confront, and to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to testify on one's own
2 Hypernatremia is a high concentration of sodium in the blood. Early symptoms
may include a strong feeling of thirst, weakness, nausea, and loss of appetite. Severe
symptoms include confusion, muscle twitching, and bleeding in or around the brain.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernatremia.
8
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID
1390
behalf or to remain silent without penalty for doing so." Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S.
127, 139-40 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring). For that reason, the Supreme Court
has recognized that trying only mentally competent defendants "is fundamental to an
adversary system of justice." United States v. Alhindi, 97 F. 4th 814 (11th Cir. 2024)
quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-72 (1975).
As previously stated, the government does not object to the Court considering
all of the mental health and medical records produced in this case. The government
does not offer any additional evidence to rebut the defense claims, evidence, or
argument. The government does not object to the Court making the determination
concerning (1) competency to stand trial, (2) restoreability or unrestoreability under
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2), and (3) whether to subject the defendant to the civil
commitment provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4246.
An 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) hearing is required under the statute. Specifically, 18
U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2) provides:
If, at the end of the time period specified, it is determined that the defendant’s
mental condition has not so improved as to permit the proceedings to go
forward, the defendant is subject to the provisions of sections 4246 and 4248.
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2). The Court has previously committed the defendant to the
custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(1):
for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is
necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the
foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go
forward.
9
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID
1391
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2)(1). The subsequent Brinkley report opines that there is not
“a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to
permit the proceedings to go forward.” Pursuant to the last sentence of 18 U.S.C. §
4241(d)(2), the Court must now determine whether “the defendant’s mental
condition has not so improved as to permit the proceedings to go forward.” This
conclusion is echoed by Dr. Darby. See Exhibit C. If the Court finds, as the Brinkly
Report states, that there is not “a substantial probability that in the foreseeable
future he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward,” then “the
defendant is subject to the provisions of sections 4246 and 4248.” 18 U.S.C. §
4241(d)(2).
In an effort to expedite this process, and to not unduly delay the defendant’s
custody at FMC Devens, the government contacted staff at FMC Devens to
facilitate any 18 U.S.C. § 4246 proceeding. The staff at FMC Devens confirms that,
since the defendant is currently in custody at FMC Devens and they are familiar
with his background and condition, they can complete any 18 U.S.C. § 4246
dangerousness evaluation in 30 days or less. Staff at FMC Devens also candidly
acknowledge that given the defendant’s current charges, his lack of criminal record,
his adjustment at FMC Devens, as well as his diagnosis and prognosis, it is unlikely
that the defendant meets the criteria under 4246 that “his release would create a
substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of
another.” Given that background, the government does not object to the Court
considering the defendant’s (1) competency, (2) restoreability or unrestoreability,
10
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID
1392
and (3) the defendant’s referral or non-referral for an 18 U.S.C. § 4246 evaluation in
one proceeding.
However, the government acknowledges that, in some respects, the statutory
scheme of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 4246, and 4247 is less than clear. In fact, the District
Court for the Middle District of Florida has considered some of the conflict and
inconsistency in the civil commitment process, which is multi-jurisdictional. See
United States v. Chappell, NO. 8:18-cr-344-VMC-AAS (M.D. FLA, Jan. 27, 2023),
attached as Exhibit D. See also Report and Recommendation United States v.
Chappell, NO. 8:18-cr-344-VMC-AAS (M.D. FLA, Jan. 11, 2023), attached as
Exhibit E. In short, there remains in the statutory scheme some question of
jurisdiction. Put another way, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) seems to suggest that the Court’s
“determination” of (1) 4241(d) incompetency and (2) unrestoreability is a condition
precedent to the 18 U.S.C. § 4246 civil commitment process. Alternatively, 18
U.S.C. § 4246 has been read to mean that the director of a facility in which a person
is hospitalized must certify that a person who has been committed to the custody of
the Attorney General pursuant to section 4241(d) is dangerous as a condition
precedent to a § 4246 dangerousness assessment. Report and Recommendation
United States v. Chappell, NO. 8:18-cr-344-VMC-AAS (M.D. FLA, Jan. 11, 2023).
But, according to the statute, the provisions of § 4246 don’t arise until “the end of
the time period specified” in § 4241. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2). See also United States v.
Wayda, 966 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2020), United States v. Curbow, 16 F.4th 92 (4th Cir
2021).
11
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID
1393
The government suggests that, if the Court determines that the facts and
circumstances of the case warrant a BOP inquiry into whether the defendant is
“suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would
create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to
property of another,” then the most prudent course of action is to continue the case
for thirty days to allow the BOP to perform that evaluation prior to making any
determination of incompetency or unrestoreability. If not, the government does not
object to the Court making the determination concerning (1) competency to stand
trial, (2) restoreability or unrestoreability under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(2), and (3)
whether to subject the defendant to the civil commitment provisions of 18 U.S.C. §
4246 in one proceeding.3
3 A further collateral matter is the ultimate disposition of the case involving the
defendant. The government suggests that dispositional issue is not ripe at this time.
Nevertheless, the government notes that the dismissal of an unrestoreably
incompetent defendant is not required. United States v. Ecker, 78 F. 3d 726 (1st Cir.
1996). Further, the government suggest that an appropriate disposition of an
unrestoreably incompetent, but non-dangerous, defendant is release under the Bail
Reform Act. United States v. McAfee, No. 18 Cr. 425 (JFK), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
5760, 2021 WL 106268 (S.D. N.Y., Jan. 12. 2021), United States v. West, No. 03-CR-
000128WYD, 2007 WL 1851305, at *6 (D. Colo. June 26, 2007), United States v.
Ostolaza-Robles, No. 13-771 (SCC), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28306, 2022 WL 47303
(D. P.R., Feb. 15, 2022), United States v. Wilson, No. CRIM.A. 09-00349-01, 2012
WL 2499506, at *3 (W.D. Mo. June 7, 2012).
12
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID
1394
WHEREFORE, the submits the briefing in response to the Court’s Order dated
October 8, 2024 (ECF NO. 226).
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Kara M. Wick
Kara M. Wick
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0085578
400 W. Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-7500
E-mail: Kara.Wick@usdoj.gov
By: /s/ James D. Peterson
James D. Peterson
Trial Attorney
Bar No. VA 35373
United States Department of Justice
1331 F Street N.W. 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
Desk: (202) 353-0796
E-mail: James. D.Peterson@usdoj
13
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 234 Filed 10/29/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID
1395
U.S. v. EVAN EDWARDS Case No. 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 29th day of October 2024, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document was filed with the Court using the Court’s CM/ECF
systems and was served upon each attorney of record via ECF notification:
Brian Philips, Esq.
/s/ James D. Peterson
James D. Peterson
Trial Attorney
14
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.234.0.pdf
- Size
- 170,165 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3a881442abe7166c25d57fd18b1cd300094954db67a393856706f308b539fa82
- Original
- PACER (login required)