Order, Motion for Pretrial Release — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 137)

Summary

Order of United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price in United States v. Joshua Edwards, Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP, Middle District of Florida, denying without prejudice the defendant's notice and motion for pretrial release (Doc. No. 133). It finds that proceedings conducted under Rule 5 and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, including detention hearings, are critical stages, so competency proceedings must go first where reasonable cause exists that a defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect. It finds United States v. Magassouba and United States v. Smith distinguishable. The order states that the next competency stage is scheduled for April 24, 2024.

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

“Order, Motion for Pretrial Release — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 137).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-joshua-edwards-dkt-137-m-d-fla-fd1d65c378/, SHA-256 fc8d6b6265a824ed139e42ca7ed7cf16386ed6a3f0e9ec7904b6bd3d26e33bdd.

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID 652

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

JOSHUA EDWARDS

ORDER

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following

motion filed herein:

MOTION: DEFENDANT JOSHUA EDWARDS’ NOTICE
PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 21, 2024
ORDER AND HIS MOTION FOR PRETRIAL
RELEASE (Doc. No. 133)

FILED: February 28, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

The question of Defendant Joshua Edwards’ competency to proceed has been

at issue in this case since at least December 14, 2022. See Doc. No. 9. Since that

time, Joshua Edwards has been evaluated by multiple experts, was initially found

to be incompetent to proceed, and was referred to the Bureau of Prisons for

restoration treatment and evaluation. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 19, 27, 69-70, 72, 94, 97-

97. See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(a), (b), 4247(b), (c), and 4241(d)(1).

On January 25, 2024, Dr. Y. Abdelaal, Psy. D., Forensic Psychologist with the

Bureau of Prisons, issued a Forensic Evaluation opining that Joshua Edwards is not
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID 653

mentally incompetent. Doc. No. 121 (sealed). And on January 29, 2024, the

Bureau of Prisons issued a Certificate of Restoration of Competency to Stand Trial.

Doc. No. 123 (sealed). During a February 8, 2024 status hearing, counsel for Joshua

Edwards stated that Mr. Edwards intended to contest the findings. Doc. Nos. 124-

125. Accordingly, the Court provided Joshua Edwards sixty (60) days to retain an

expert and to have the expert evaluate Mr. Edwards and file a report with the Court.

Doc. No. 125. The Court also set this matter for an in-person competency hearing

on April 24, 2024. Id.

On February 21, 2024, the Court also issued an order directing the parties to

file a joint notice stating whether, given the Certificate of Restoration to

Competency, the Court may proceed with the completion of all Rule 5 and Rule 11

proceedings, which would also include a detention hearing. Doc. No. 132. The

parties timely-filed their joint notice on March 6, 2024, in which Joshua Edwards

argued that Rule 5 and Rule 11 hearings can be conducted, that the United States is

not authorized to conduct a detention hearing, and that Mr. Edwards should be

immediately released. Doc. No. 134, at 1-2. The United States, on the other hand,

argued that Joshua Edwards’ competency should be fully resolved prior to any Rule

5 or Rule 11 proceedings, including a detention hearing, and that the United States

is fully authorized to seek detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Id., at 2-3. In

addition, on February 28, 2024, Joshua Edwards filed the above-styled notice and

-2-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID 654

motion requesting his immediate pretrial release. Doc. No. 133. The United

States has filed a response in opposition. Doc. No. 135.

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments in the joint notice, motion, and

response, the Court continues to find that proceedings conducted under Rule 5 and

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, including detention hearings,

are critical stages of the case, such that if reasonable cause exists that a defendant is

presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him or her mentally

incompetent, the Court must proceed with competency proceedings before moving

forward with any other stages of the case. See United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164

(2d Cir. 2010); United States v. McCrary, 569 F.2d 429 (6th Cir. 1978); United States v.

Pinto, Case No. 6:17-cr-68-RBD-KRS, Doc. No. 11 (Feb. 1, 2017); United States v.

Meyer, No. 2:11-CR-43-FTM-29SPC, 2011 WL 1519724, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2011);

United States v. Moser, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Okla. 2008); United States v. Sloan,

820 F. Supp. 1133 (S.D. Ind. 1993). This finding is consistent with prior rulings the

Court has made in this case. See Doc. Nos. 9, 14, 19, 27, 29; see also Doc. No. 84.

In his motion, Joshua Edwards acknowledges that there is a “dearth of

applicable case law” as to whether Rule 5 and Rule 11 proceedings can go forward

prior to the conclusion of competency proceedings, and that the Court has

previously ruled on this very issue with respect to co-Defendant Evan Edwards.

Doc. No. 133, at 7-8. In an attempt to persuade the Court to change its mind, Joshua

Edwards points to two decisions: United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387 (2d Cir.

-3-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID 655

2008); and United States v. Smith, 764 F. Supp. 2d 541 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). Doc. No.

133, at 8-11. Upon review, both cases are distinguishable and therefore

unpersuasive. First, neither decision speaks to whether Rule 5 or Rule 11

proceedings can go forward while a defendant’s competency is in question, rather

both decisions address the issue of pretrial detention. And in Magassouba, while

the Second Circuit found that an incompetent defendant is not exempt from

detention hearings, the Court was faced with an entirely different factual and

procedural posture. The Magassouba court addressed the length of hospitalization

permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and whether Defendant’s continued detention

– which was never contested – was constitutionally unreasonable so as to violate

due process once the defendant was found incompetent to proceed. 544 F.3d at

392. Notably, the Second Circuit held that a 19-month detention period did not

violate due process, as the district court was required to carefully consider “a host

of medical and legal factors” in reaching a decision concerning the involuntary

administration of medication. Id. Moreover, the Second Circuit noted that a

defendant is “pending trial,” while his competency is at issue, and that certain

pretrial proceedings and motions that do not require the personal participation of

the defendant can go forward. Id., at 413. But there can be no doubt that a

defendant’s personal participation is required to complete initial appearance

proceedings (during which the defendant is advised of his rights, the charges and

penalties, among other things), to complete an arraignment (during which a formal

-4-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID 656

plea is entered), and to conduct a detention hearing (where the defendant would

assist in providing evidence and identifying witnesses).

And in Smith, the District Court based its decision on whether to hold a

detention hearing on whether the defendant’s due process rights were being

violated due to the length of time it took to transport the defendant to the Bureau

of Prisons, and whether the time awaiting transport could be considered part of the

four-month commitment period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Smith, 784 F. Supp.

2d at 544-45. No such issues exist here, and upon review, the Court finds the other

authority previously relied upon (see Doc. No. 84) to be more persuasive on the

issue. 1

Joshua Edwards also points to the fact that his co-Defendant, Evan Edwards,

is currently out on conditions of pretrial release, even though Evan Edwards’

competency is still very much in question and restoration proceedings have not yet

commenced. Doc. No. 133, at 12. However, as the United States points out in its

response, Evan Edwards’ situation is vastly different from Joshua Edwards. See

1
The Court is similarly unpersuaded by Joshua Edwards’ citation to United States
v. James Larry Wilborn, Case No. 6:13-cr-253-RBD-GJK, as in that case, the question of
defendant’s competency was not raised until after all Rule 5 proceedings, including the
question of pretrial release, had been resolved. See id., Doc. Nos. 3, 8, 17. Similarly, the
question of defendant’s competency in United States v. Defario Antoine Evans, Case No. 6:19-
cr-116-PGB-DCI was not raised until after the defendant completed his initial appearance
and arraignment proceedings, and pretrial release conditions had been set. See id., Doc.
Nos. 6, 10, 23. In the present case, however, Joshua Edward’s competency has been in
question since his very first appearance in this Court, which has precluded the completion
of any further critical stages of his case. See Doc. No. 9.
-5-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID 657

Doc. No. 135, at 7-8. Evan Edwards is suffering from severe physical as well as

mental conditions, and his physical state played a key role in determining whether

he could be released. Id.; see also Doc. No. 102. There was no ruling that Evan

Edwards could move forward with Rule 5, Rule 11, or contested detention

proceedings, and the Court’s February 24, 2023 Order was never vacated. Doc. No.

84. In contrast, Joshua Edwards, thankfully, suffers from no such serious medical

conditions, and the United States has made clear that it intends to challenge Joshua

Edwards’ release based on whether he is a serious risk of flight. Doc. No. 135.

More importantly, the Court is unaware of any legal tenet that requires every co-

Defendant in a case to be treated the same with respect to pretrial release or

detention (and Joshua Edwards points to none). Indeed, it is quite commonplace

for the United States to seek pretrial detention for some defendants while not

seeking it for others, and this case appears no different.

For these reasons, the Court is not persuaded that Joshua Edwards can go

forward with Rule 5 and Rule 11 proceedings, including a detention hearing –

which are all critical stages of the case – while his competency is still in question.

Accordingly, Joshua Edwards’ motion (Doc. No. 133) is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. He may renew his request for a detention hearing following

-6-
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 137 Filed 03/18/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID 658

completion of the competency proceedings, the next stage of which is scheduled for

April 24, 2024, if necessary and appropriate. 2

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 18, 2024.

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

United States Attorney
Counsel for Defendant

2
The Court is also unpersuaded by Joshua Edwards’ argument that the United
States is prohibited from seeking detention in this case. See United States v. Megahed, 519
F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1247-49 (M.D. Fla. 2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A). Instead, it appears
that Joshua Edwards’ arguments go towards whether the United States can establish a
“serious risk of flight” such that he can be detained, not that a detention hearing cannot be
held. See Doc. No. 133, at 12-18. Contrary to his assertions, the issues he raises can only
be decided at a full detention hearing, which can be scheduled upon the completion of
competency proceedings.
-7-

File and source

File: 137.pdf
Size: 214,885 bytes
SHA-256: fc8d6b6265a824ed139e42ca7ed7cf16386ed6a3f0e9ec7904b6bd3d26e33bdd
Our copy: 137.pdf
Original: No public link identified.