Court filing

Order Finding Defendant Incompetent and Modifying Conditions of Pretrial Release — United States v. Evan Edwards (a/k/a Ian Heringa) and…

No. 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP · Doc. 238 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 238 Filed 11/01/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1432

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS. CASE NO: 6:22-cr-201-WWB-LHP

EVAN EDWARDS

ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT INCOMPETENT
ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL RELEASE
AND DIRECTION TO THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

The Court previously found Defendant Evan Edwards not mentally

competent to proceed as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), and remanded

Defendant Evan Edwards to the custody of the Attorney General to be hospitalized

for treatment in a suitable facility for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four

months, as was necessary to determine whether there was a substantial probability

that in the foreseeable future he would attain the capacity to permit the proceedings

to go forward. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1); Doc. Nos. 117, 136. On September 12,

2024, Chad Brinkley, Ph.D., ABPP, a licensed psychologist Board-Certified in

Forensic Psychology employed at the Federal Medical Center in Devens,

Massachusetts (“FMC Devens”), issued a forensic psychological report opining that

Defendant Evan Edwards remains incompetent to proceed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 238 Filed 11/01/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID 1433

4241(a), and is unlikely to become competent in the foreseeable future. Doc. No.

228 (sealed).

The undersigned thereafter held a status conference with counsel for both

sides on October 8, 2024. Doc. Nos. 220-221, 224. During that hearing, the Court

granted the United States’ oral motion to appoint one additional expert – forensic

neurologist Dr. Ryan Darby, M.D. – to review any and all available records and

reports for Defendant Evan Edwards and to prepare and submit a report as to his

competency and potential for restoration in the foreseeable future. Doc. Nos. 224,

226. Dr. Darby timely-submitted his report on October 29, 2024, in which he also

opined that Defendant Evan Edwards is not competent to stand trial and that his

likelihood of recovery and restoration to competency are low. Doc. No. 237

(sealed).

The undersigned held a previously scheduled status conference with counsel

today, November 1, 2024. Doc. Nos. 227, 235. During that hearing, the

undersigned discussed various competency-related issues with counsel, and also

reviewed the United States’ status report, filed on October 29, 2024. Doc. Nos. 234-

235. At the conclusion of the discussion with the parties, counsel made clear that

the issue of Defendant Evan Edwards’ competency is no longer contested, and that

no party is objecting to the opinions of either Dr. Brinkley or Dr. Darby.

-2-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 238 Filed 11/01/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID 1434

Based on these representations and the United States’ status report (Doc. No.

234), and upon an independent review of the facts of this case, to include the various

submitted forensic reports, and a review of governing law, and finding no objection

by the United States or Defendant Evan Edwards, I find that the question of

Defendant Evan Edwards’ competency is no longer contested. I further find by a

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Evan Edwards is incompetent to

proceed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) and (d). Specifically, I find that Defendant

Evan Edwards is presently 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,

that his mental condition has not so improved as to permit proceedings in this case

to go forward, and that the chances his competency will be restored in the

foreseeable future is low. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). 1

1 The undersigned is able to make this finding by an Order as opposed to a Report
and Recommendation pursuant to the October 30, 2024 Second Amended Order filed in In
re: Administrative Orders of the Chief Judge, Case No. 3:21-mc-1-TJC, Doc. No. 157, at 4
(authorizing a Magistrate Judge to conduct proceedings and issue an order as to “[a]
psychiatric or psychological report to determine competency under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and a
competency hearing, except that a magistrate judge must file a report and recommendation
concerning a defendant’s competency if the parties dispute the defendants’ competency.).
In addition, the United States expressed concern as to whether Defendant Evan
Edwards was required to be present in order for the undersigned to make this finding.
However, the undersigned has not located any binding authority requiring his presence
under the circumstances of today’s status hearing, and Defendant Evan Edwards’ counsel
expressly waived any right that may exist requiring Defendant Evan Edwards’ presence.

-3-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 238 Filed 11/01/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID 1435

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), once such a finding is made, the next step is

to determine whether the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246 and/or 4248 apply. The

parties agree that 18 U.S.C. § 4248, which addresses civil commitment of a sexually

dangerous person, do not apply in this case. With respect to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, while

the parties agreed during today’s status conference that they do not wish to pursue

§ 4246 proceedings, it is unclear at this time whether such proceedings can be

waived, and the undersigned does not have the authority to make that conclusive

determination. The undersigned will instead issue a separate report and

recommendation on that issue in due course. Cf., United States v. Ferguson, No. 04-

cr-14041-01-DMM/WM, 2020 WL 3481430, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2020) (order by

United States Magistrate Judge finding Defendant incompetent and that his

competency cannot be restored and ordering further briefing as to next steps in the

case).

The last issue the undersigned addressed with the parties at today’s status

conference was the question of Defendant Evan Edwards’ continued detention.

The United States originally agreed to pretrial release, see Doc. Nos. 99, 102, and

United States Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd released Defendant Evan Edwards

on pretrial conditions, effective September 12, 2023. Doc. Nos. 112-114.

However, on May 20, 2024, the undersigned revoked Defendant Evan Edwards’

pretrial release, primarily due his and his third-party custodian Mary Jane

-4-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 238 Filed 11/01/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID 1436

Edwards’ repeated failure to comply with various Court directives. Doc. No. 190;

see also Doc. Nos. 154, 166-167, 175, 177.

Given that Defendant Evan Edwards has now been found incompetent and

not capable of restoration in the foreseeable future, the parties agree that pretrial

release is again warranted. The undersigned engaged in extensive discussion with

counsel for Defendant Evan Edwards with respect to an appropriate release plan,

and at the request of the undersigned, counsel has now filed a notice regarding

same. Doc. No. 236. Upon consideration of that discussion and the notice, and

with the United States’ agreement, the undersigned ORDERS Defendant Evan

Edwards to be released on the same conditions of pretrial release established by

Magistrate Judge Kidd (Doc. No. 114), with one addition. Both Mary Jane

Edwards and Joy Edwards are APPOINTED third-party custodians of Defendant

Evan Edwards, and they both shall ensure that Defendant Evan Edwards is

supervised in accordance with all conditions of release, that he shall appear at all

court proceedings (including any required evaluations), and that they will notify

the court immediately if any conditions of release are violated. All other

conditions of release remain in full force and effect. Doc. No. 114.

The United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) is DIRECTED to forthwith

transport Defendant Evan Edwards from FMC Devens to the United States

Courthouse for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, where Defendant

-5-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-AGM-LHP Document 238 Filed 11/01/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1437

Evan Edwards’ third-party custodians will receive custody of him and transport

him to their residence. The deadline for the USMS to transport Defendant Evan

Edwards to the Middle District of Florida is Friday, November 22, 2024. The

USMS will coordinate with Defendant Evan Edwards’ counsel so that the third-

party custodians will be at the courthouse with appropriate transport when

Defendant Evan Edwards arrives in this District.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 1, 2024.

Copies furnished to:

United States Marshal
United States Attorney
Counsel for Defendant

-6-

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.238.0.pdf
Size: 108,898 bytes
SHA-256: 8ecc04b8ef383d919028ec63f5dde29b6f19c54a313746ff11b694af96a3af67
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.408844.238.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)