Motion for Determination of Mental Competency — United States v. Russell Bryant Lester (D. Colo., Dkt. 49)

Summary

A Motion for Determination of Mental Competency, filed August 10, 2022, as Document 49 in United States of America v. Russell Bryant Lester, Criminal Case No. 21-cr-00230-DDD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Counsel for the defendant moves under 18 U.S.C. 4241 and states that the defendant is charged by indictment with six (6) counts of wire fraud and one (1) count of bank fraud. The motion asks the Court to hold a competency hearing, vacate court settings including the trial date and motion filing deadlines, stay proceedings, and exclude delay from speedy trial calculations under 18 USC §3161(h)(1)(A). It states that the government does not oppose, and it is signed s/Nathan D. Chambers.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Motion for Determination of Mental Competency — United States v. Russell Bryant Lester (D. Colo., Dkt. 49).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-1-21-cr-00230-dkt-49-d-colo-709f7d6254/, SHA-256 7f934f9bcae2791a0fc0264a00fab36acc217e3d1b830e440f300310c9fbe902.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 21-cr-00230-DDD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

RUSSELL BRYANT LESTER,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF MENTAL COMPETENCY
____________________________________________________________

Counsel for the Defendant, Russell Lester, moves this Court for a

determination of Mr. Lester’s mental competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241.

1. Introduction

Mr. Lester has been charged by indictment with six (6) counts of wire fraud

and one (1) count of bank fraud. Undersigned counsel has been appointed to

represent Mr. Lester in this matter. Undersigned counsel is concerned that Mr.

Lester is incompetent to proceed, and is therefore required to raise this issue with

the Court. Counsel's concerns are based on interactions with Mr. Lester and on

consultations with mental health professionals who have evaluated Mr. Lester and

observed his ability to assist properly in his defense.
1
Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7

2. Counsel’s Duty to Raise Competency and the Court’s Duty to Determine
Competency

18 U.S.C. § 4241 provides that the Court “shall” hold a hearing to determine

the mental competency of the defendant” if

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.

Id. The statute makes clear that the hearing to determine competency is mandatory

where there is “reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be”

incompetent. The words “reasonable cause” and “may” show that the bar is not

high to trigger a court’s obligation to determine competency.

Defense counsel has similar obligations. In United States v. Boigegrain, 155

F.3d 1181, 1188 (10th Cir. 1998), the Tenth Circuit stated, “defense counsel has

the most intimate association with the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's lawyer

is not only allowed to raise the competency issue, but, because of the importance

of the prohibition on trying those who cannot understand proceedings against

them, she has a professional duty to do so when appropriate.” See also United

States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 202, 245 (D. Mass. 2011) (quoting Robidoux v.

O’Brien, 643 F.3d 334, 338–39 (1st Cir. 2011))(“where there are substantial

indications that the defendant is not competent to stand trial, counsel is not faced
2
Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7

with a strategy choice but has a settled obligation . . . under federal law . . . to raise

the issue with the trial judge and ordinarily to seek a competency examination.”)

3. Overview of Law Regarding Competency

“It is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not

competent to stand trial.” Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 (1992) (citing

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975); accord McGregor v. Gibson, 248 F.3d

946, 951 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he criminal trial of an incompetent defendant

violates due process. This prohibition is fundamental to an adversary system of

justice.”).

18 U.S.C. § 4241 and relevant caselaw mandate that the defendant be

competent at all stages of the proceedings, not just at trial. Section 4241 clearly

contemplates competency inquiries over a wide period of time, i.e. “[a]t any time

after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing

of defendant.” In Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402 (1993), Justices Kennedy

and Scalia in concurrence noted that the requirement that defendant be competent

“is applicable from the time of arraignment through the return of a verdict.”

The standard for determining competency to proceed to trial set out by the

Supreme Court nearly 60 years ago has remained firmly established: “it is not

3
Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7

enough for the district judge to find that the defendant (is) oriented to time and

place and (has) some recollection of events, but [] the test must be whether he has

sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of

rational understanding – and whether he has a rational as well as factual

understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S.

402 (1960) (internal quotation omitted).

Reaffirming Dusky, the Supreme Court in Godinez v. Moran, supra at 402

(reasoned that “[r]equiring [] a criminal defendant be competent has a modest aim:

It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to

assist counsel.” This fundamental goal means that, “[f]or the defendant, the

consequences of an erroneous determination of competence are dire. Because he

lacks the ability to communicate effectively with counsel, he may be unable to

exercise other ‘rights deemed essential to a fair trial.’” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517

U.S. 348, 364 (1996) (quoting Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 139 (1992)

(Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)). So essential is this “modest aim” to a

defendant's constitutional rights that the Supreme Court has held that requiring a

defendant to show he was incompetent by clear and convincing evidence was

unconstitutional because that standard failed to “‘jealously guard[]’ . . . an

incompetent criminal defendant's fundamental right not to stand trial.” Cooper, 517

4
Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7

U.S. at 363 (quoting Jacob v. New York City, 315 U.S. 752, 752-53 (1942)). In so

holding, the Court reasoned that this fundamental right outweighs the

Government's interest “in the prompt disposition of criminal charges” and its

interest “in the efficient operation of its criminal justice system.” Cooper, 517 U.S.

at 365, 367.

With the Supreme Court's “modest aim” in mind, and in light of significant

concerns regarding Mr. Lester’s competency, the Court should order a competency

evaluation and conduct a hearing to determine Mr. Lester’s mental competency.

4. Stay of Proceedings and Exclusion of Time From Speedy Trial Calculations

18 USC §3161(h)(1)(A) excludes from speedy trial calculations the delay

resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the

mental competency of the defendant. Accordingly, counsel requests that court

settings, including the trial date, and motion filing deadlines be vacated and further

proceedings in this matter be stayed pending a determination of Mr. Lester's

competency to proceed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241.

5. Conferral with Government Counsel

Undersigned counsel has conferred with the Assistant United States

Attorneys assigned to this case and is authorized to inform the Court that the

government does not oppose vacating the current trial date and motion filing

5
Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7

deadlines and staying further proceedings in this matter pending a determination of

Mr. Lester’s competency. Government counsel further agrees that, pursuant to 18

USC §3161(h)(1)(A), any delay resulting from any competency proceedings,

including any delay related to examinations, should be excluded from speedy trial

calculations.

6. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing it is respectfully requested that the Court:

a. Conduct a hearing to determine Mr. Lester’s competency pursuant to

18 U.S.C. §4241.

b. Order that court settings, including the trial date, and motion filing

deadlines be vacated and further proceedings stayed pending determination of Mr.

Lester’s competency.

c. Order that any delay resulting from any competency proceedings,

including any delay related to examinations, be excluded from speedy trial

calculations.

Respectfully submitted August 10, 2022.

6
Case 1:21-cr-00230-DDD Document 49 Filed 08/10/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7

NATHAN D. CHAMBERS LLC
By: s/Nathan D. Chambers
Nathan D. Chambers
303 16th Street, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 825-2222
nchambers@nathanchamberslaw.com

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading complies with the type-volume
limitation set forth in Judge Domenico’s Practice Standard III(A)(1).
s/Nathan D. Chambers
Nathan D. Chambers

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 10, 2022, I presented the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to counsel of record.

By: s/Nathan D. Chambers
Nathan D. Chambers
303 16th Street, Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 825-2222

File and source

File: 49.pdf
Size: 170,876 bytes
SHA-256: 7f934f9bcae2791a0fc0264a00fab36acc217e3d1b830e440f300310c9fbe902
Our copy: 49.pdf
Original: No public link identified.