Pre-Hearing Brief Regarding Upcoming Competency Hearing — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 205)
Summary
Defendant Joshua Edwards's pre-hearing brief regarding the upcoming competency hearing in United States v. Joshua Edwards, Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. It states that the hearing is set for July 10, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. and recounts the procedural history, including a finding on April 28, 2023 that Mr. Edwards was not competent to proceed and a forensic evaluation report submitted under seal on or about January 25, 2024 indicating that Mr. Edwards was fit to proceed. It sets out legal standards, argues that the burden falls on the United States to show competency by a preponderance of the evidence, and argues that Dr. Danziger's report and ultimate opinion should not be relied on. It requests an Order finding Mr. Edwards not competent to stand trial.
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
“Pre-Hearing Brief Regarding Upcoming Competency Hearing — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 205).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-joshua-edwards-dkt-205-m-d-fla-45646a317c/
, SHA-256 bc283dfc6717815e57edc16c4202332c757b7098ba16cc2836e075e0eaa4a2f8.Full text
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 1 of 23 PageID 900
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 6:22-cr-201-WWB-LHP
)
JOSHUA EDWARDS, )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANT JOSHUA EDWARDS’S PRE-HEARING
BRIEF REGARDING UPCOMING COMPETENCY HEARING
Defendant Joshua Edwards (“Mr. Edwards”), by and through the
undersigned counsel, hereby submits a pre-hearing brief setting forth factual and
legal issues that are relevant to the defense at the competency hearing set for July
10, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. (Doc. 187). In support thereof, Mr. Edwards states as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Relevant Procedural History
On December 7, 2022, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging
Mr. Edwards with various fraud offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1349, 18 U.S.C. § 1014, and 18 U.S.C. § 1546. See Doc. 1.
On December 14, 2022, Mr. Edwards was arrested and had his initial
appearance before the Court. See Docs. 9, 14. At the initial appearance, prior
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 2 of 23 PageID 901
defense counsel and the Court raised competency concerns with respect to Mr.
Edwards. Doc. 14 at 7-8. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered that
Mr. Edwards remain in the custody of the U.S. Marshals and appointed a local
psychiatrist to conduct a competency evaluation of Mr. Edwards. Doc. 14 at 8, 11;
see also Doc. 19.
After a series of competency evaluations, the Court found on April 28, 2023
that Mr. Edwards was not competent to proceed, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(d)
and 4247. See Docs. 69, 71, 72, 96, 97.
On or about January 25, 2024, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) submitted to
the Court, under seal, a forensic evaluation report, indicating that Mr. Edwards
was fit to proceed in the case. See Sealed Doc. 121. The BOP also submitted under
seal a certificate of restoration of competency to stand trial for Mr. Edwards. See
Sealed Doc. 123.
On February 8, 2024, at a status conference, the Court and the parties
addressed the BOP’s findings concerning Mr. Edwards’s competency status.
Docs. 124, 125. At this hearing, prior defense counsel informed the Court that Mr.
Edwards was contesting the BOP’s conclusion that he was now competent to
proceed in his case. Doc. 125.
On February 14, 2024, prior defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw as
Mr. Edwards’s attorney. Docs. 126-128.
2
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 3 of 23 PageID 902
On February 21, 2024, the Court held a hearing on prior defense counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Doc. 130. At this hearing, the Court granted the motion to
withdraw and appointed the undersigned to represent Mr. Edwards. Docs. 130,
131.
On April 2, 2024, the undersigned filed his own motion to withdraw as Mr.
Edwards’s counsel, after conferring with the Florida Bar ethics hotline as well as
the U.S. Courts, Defender Services Office Training Division’s CJA hotline. Doc.
146.
On April 8, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the undersigned’s motion to
withdraw. Doc. 150. At this hearing, the Court permitted the undersigned to
address the Court in camera, outside the presence of the government, so that the
undersigned could provide the basis for his motion to withdraw. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Court denied the motion to withdraw but agreed to
reschedule the competency hearing. See Doc. 151.
On April 16, 2024, the undersigned formally retained Dr. Randy K. Otto
(“Dr. Otto”) to evaluate Mr. Edwards. 1
1Prior defense counsel had previously retained Dr. Melvin Pagan-Gonzalez (“Dr. Pagan-
Gonzalez”) to conduct a competency evaluation of Mr. Edwards. See Doc. 179. The
undersigned has not provided any reports from this expert to either the government or
the Court because the undersigned will not be relying on the opinions of Dr. Pagan-
Gonzalez at the competency hearing.
3
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 4 of 23 PageID 903
Thereafter, substantial efforts were made to have Mr. Edwards evaluated by
Dr. Otto. See Docs. 179, 201. Despite these efforts, Dr. Otto was unable to render
an opinion as to Mr. Edwards’s current competency status. See Sealed Doc. 178;
Docs. 179, 201. Therefore, the undersigned will not be relying on testimony or a
report from Dr. Otto or any other defense retained expert at the upcoming
competency hearing, which is currently set for July 10, 2024. Doc. 187.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
A. Legal Standards At Competency Hearing
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits courts from
trying and convicting mentally incompetent defendants. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S.
162, 171-72 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 384-86 (1966); United States v.
Mason, 52 F.3d 1286 (4th Cir. 1995). The legal test for competency is whether the
defendant has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding" and "a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him." United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d
753, 760 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
added). Moreover, pursuant to a statutorily prescribed standard, a person is
incompetent to stand trial if "the defendant 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
4
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 5 of 23 PageID 904
or to assist properly in his defense." 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). The preponderance of the
evidence standard applies at a competency hearing. Id. This standard requires the
factfinder to find "that the existence of [the] fact is more probable than its
nonexistence." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371 (1970). The defendant's competency
is an ongoing inquiry, and he must be competent at all stages of the trial. Rahim,
431 F.3d at 759. The same competency standard applies to a defendant who wishes
to plead guilty rather than stand trial. United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1252
(11th Cir. 2014).
In making a competency determination, the Court may consider a number
of factors, including the defendant's behavior in the courtroom, evidence of
irrational behavior, and any prior medical opinions as to competence. See Drope,
420 U.S. at 180. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit has permitted the Court to consider,
inter alia, a defendant's behavior and statements in open court and previous
psychological evaluations. See Rahim, 431 F.3d at 759; Watts v. Singletary, 87 F.3d
1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 1996). Evidence of incompetency need not be in the form of
admissible evidence. See Rahim, 431 F.3d at 759. Moreover, "[b]ecause legal
competency is primarily a function of [a] defendant's role in assisting counsel in
conducting the defense, the defendant's attorney is in the best position to
determine whether the defendant's competency is suspect." Singletary, 87 F.3d at
1288.
5
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 6 of 23 PageID 905
B. Burden of Proof At Competency Hearing
Mr. Edwards asserts that the burden falls on the United States to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that he is competent to stand trial. See United States
v. Teague, 956 F.2d 1427, 1432 & n.10 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d
872, 875 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Velasquez, 885 F.2d 1076, 1089 (3d Cir. 1989);
United States v. Hutson, 821 F.2d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir. 1987); but see United States v.
Allen, No. 10-80175-CR, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108094, 2011 WL 4352793, at *58 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 26, 2011) (discussing the circuit split on the issue of which party bears
the burden of proof as to competency but ultimately placing the burden on the
government to prove competency because this “determination is not dependent
upon the allocation of the burden since the evidence is not in equipoise”).
In a relatively recent case in this district, the government conceded that the
burden rested with it to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a
defendant’s competency to stand trial had been restored. United States v. Madison,
No. 6:17-cr-15-Orl-37LRH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244730, 2020 WL 8461574, at *7-8
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:17-CR-15-
ORL-37LRH, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244034, 2020 WL 7768460 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30,
2020); see also United States v. Cabrera, No. 07-20760-CR, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44724,
2008 WL 2374234, at *6 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2008) ("[I]f there is an adjudication of
incompetency, and the defendant is committed to the Attorney General . . . the
6
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 7 of 23 PageID 906
burden of persuasion shifts; i.e., the court must find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to
understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to
assist properly in his defense.").
C. Consideration of Expert Opinions At Competency Hearing
As noted, a district "court [i]s justified in relying on its own observations" as
part of determining whether a competency examination or hearing is required.
United States v. Battle, 613 F.3d 258, 263 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at
180). While the Court may consider expert testimony in determining competency,
the Court is free to assign whatever weight the Court determines is due to such
testimony. Battle v. United States, 419 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). In fact, it is
“well-settled” that expert opinions on the issue of competency are not binding on
the trier of fact, “if there is reason to discount it.” United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d
1269, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Strickland v. Francis, 738 F.2d 1542, 1552 (11th Cir.
1984)).
RELEVANT FACTUAL ISSUES
A. Behavior And Demeanor At Initial Appearance
From the outset, Mr. Edwards’s in-court behavior and demeanor was
wholly consistent with an incompetent defendant, i.e., an individual with no
ability to consult with counsel to a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
7
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 8 of 23 PageID 907
Moreover, he exhibited behavior suggesting that he had no rational
comprehension of the proceedings against him. On December 14, 2022, at his
initial appearance, Mr. Edwards was unable to understand the nature of the
charges or the maximum penalties he was facing. Doc. 14 at 5-6. At this hearing,
prior defense counsel expressed “difficulty explaining the charges to Mr.
Edwards.” Id. at 6. In fact, the only information that prior defense counsel could
obtain from Mr. Edwards was the name of a private attorney who did not
represent the defendant. Id. Before concluding the hearing, the Court addressed
Mr. Edwards directly and attempted to obtain additional information. Id. at 7. Mr.
Edwards was unable to provide any responsive answers to the Court.
In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Edwards’s Pretrial Services Report
indicated that he had a learning disability, that he was homeschooled, and that he
suffered from autism, which was never formally diagnosed.
B. Competency Evaluations
1. First Evaluation by Dr. Danziger
On February 2, 2023, Jeffrey A. Danziger, M.D. (“Dr. Danziger”) conducted
the first competency evaluation of Mr. Edwards at the Orange County Jail. A copy
of Dr. Danziger’s evaluation report was submitted to the Court under seal. Sealed
Doc. 70. The government will also introduce Dr. Danziger’s report at Mr.
Edwards’s competency evaluation. In his report, Dr. Danziger acknowledged that
8
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 9 of 23 PageID 908
he did not review the legal pleadings in this case, including the charging
instrument. Instead, the only document concerning factual allegations that Dr.
Danziger reviewed was a newspaper article about Mr. Edwards’s legal charges.
During this first evaluation, Mr. Edwards “presented with a very childlike
demeanor . . . seemingly frightened,” and was “entirely unable to provide . . . even
the simplest historical information.” When Dr. Danziger asked questions, Mr.
Edwards could only respond “mom and dad help me” or “mom and dad give me
special bread.” Dr. Danziger was unable to conduct any forensic tests, including
tests for malingering.
Despite the limitations of the evaluation, Dr. Danziger provided a diagnosis
for Mr. Edwards of “Probable Malingering.” This guarded opinion was based on
inconsistent information that Dr. Danziger gleamed from unidentified corrections
staff at the Orange County Jail. According to Dr. Danziger, some corrections staff
confirmed that Mr. Edwards “acts in a childlike fashion,” while other staff
members reported a “higher level” functioning by the defendant. Additionally,
unreliable third-hand information was factored into Dr. Danziger’s opinion from
“fellow inmates” who claimed that Mr. Edwards was “faking.”
Dr. Danziger’s report and his ultimate opinion should not be relied on by
this Court. As noted, Dr. Danziger was not able to conduct any forensic testing.
9
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 10 of 23 PageID 909
Moreover, the information that Dr. Danziger relied on from the corrections staff
and inmates was inconsistent and unreliable.
On February 13, 2023, the Court held a status conference to discuss Dr.
Danziger’s report. Docs. 68-69. During the status conference, the government
expressed its agreement with Dr. Danziger’s report, while prior defense counsel
objected to the report. Docs. 69, 72. Prior defense counsel requested an additional
examination to further assess Mr. Edwards’s competency. Id. The government
did not object to a second examination, and both sides agreed that Mr. Edwards
should be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a more thorough
examination. Id. Thereafter, the Court ordered that Mr. Edwards should be sent
to a suitable BOP facility for a second competency evaluation. Doc. 72. Based on
the foregoing, the government has tacitly conceded that Dr. Danziger’s report was
not sufficient to determine Mr. Edwards’s competency to stand trial.
2. Second Evaluation By Dr. Micono
Mr. Edwards was ultimately sent to the Federal Correctional Institution in
Englewood, Colorado (“FCI Englewood”) where he was evaluated by Jessica
Micono, Psy.D. (“Dr. Micono”), a board-certified forensic psychologist employed
by the BOP. On April 17, 2023, Dr. Micono issued a forensic evaluation report,
which the Court received under seal. See Sealed Doc. 94; Doc. 97. The government
10
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 11 of 23 PageID 910
will be introducing this report into evidence at Mr. Edwards’s competency
hearing.
Dr. Micono’s evaluation consisted of several clinical interviews and
observations of Mr. Edwards’s behavior at the facility. Specifically, Dr. Micono
saw Mr. Edwards on March 15, 2023 (approximately one hour and 20 minutes),
March 21, 2023 (approximately one hour and 30 minutes), March 22, 2023
(approximately two hours), and April 3, 2023 (two sessions – the first lasting
approximately one hour and 30 minutes, and the second lasting approximately 15
minutes). Additionally, a doctoral psychology intern met with Mr. Edwards on
other dates and times under Dr. Micono’s supervision.
Dr. Micono also reviewed several court documents and collateral sources of
information, including social media posts and podcast recordings from a “profile
with the name Joshua Edwards.” In the social media posts, Mr. Edwards gave
sermons and discussed Bible verses. In the podcast recordings, it appeared that
he was “reading out loud off of a cue card.”
Dr. Micono also reviewed several of Mr. Edwards’s recorded inmate calls to
his sister and mother. In these calls, Mr. Edwards’s sister and mother gave him
instructions on how to answer questions during Dr. Micono’s interviews. In the
calls, it appeared that Mr. Edwards did not fully comprehend the situation he was
in, as he repeatedly asked his sister and mother the same questions, despite his
11
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 12 of 23 PageID 911
family providing him with answers. According to Dr. Micono, Mr. Edwards’s
telephone calls to his family were “consistent with his presentation during
evaluation sessions.”
Dr. Micono also conducted and attempted to conduct several different
forms of psychological testing. Mr. Edwards’ performance and level of
participation in these tests varied. In some instances, he scored in extremely low
ranges. Dr. Micono noted that Mr. Edwards’s test results demonstrated potential
evidence of feigning or exaggerating symptoms. However, she also noted that:
A primary problem resulting from a defendant’s efforts to exaggerate
and/or feign symptoms is the associated problem of assessing
cognitive and mental health issues that might be present. That is, just
because an individual is exaggerating or feigning certain mental
health or cognitive problems, it does not preclude the presence of
genuine mental health problems.
Dr. Micono concluded that there was evidence that Mr. Edwards may be
suffering from autism spectrum disorder, which would significantly impair his
ability to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings, and would
inhibit his ability to properly assist counsel in his defense. Stated another way,
Mr. Edwards’s behavior during the interviews and observations conducted by Dr.
Micono were consistent with someone suffering from autism spectrum disorder.
Mr. Edward’s lack of formal education or social life, outside of his family
unit, could also explain why this condition may have gone unidentified during his
formative years. As noted in Dr. Micono’s report, Mr. Edwards was
12
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 13 of 23 PageID 912
homeschooled and received a degree from an unaccredited religious institution.
An internet search revealed that a diploma from this institution does not “certify
levels of attainment, but rather accumulation of training credits.” Mr. Edwards
also had no dating history and few friends.
Ultimately, Dr. Micono concluded that Mr. Edwards was not competent to
proceed and she recommended that he be committed to a federal medical center
for restoration treatment.
On April 28, 2023, the Court held another hearing on Mr. Edwards’s
competency status. Docs. 95-96. At this hearing, the Court accepted Dr. Micono’s
evaluation and opinions, without objection from either party. Doc. 97. On this
same date, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Edwards
was not competent to proceed and committed him to a BOP facility for restoration
treatment. Id.
3. Third Evaluation By Dr. Abdelaal
Pursuant to the Court’s commitment order (Doc. 97), Mr. Edwards arrived
at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois (“MCC Chicago”) on
August 24, 2023. Thus, it appears that for four months, Mr. Edwards’s mental
incompetency went untreated and unaddressed while he waited at the Orange
County Jail to be transported to a BOP facility for competency restoration. At
MCC Chicago, Mr. Edwards’s treatment was overseen by Y. Abdelaal, Psy.D. (“Dr.
13
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 14 of 23 PageID 913
Abdelaal”), a forensic psychologist. It does not appear that Dr. Abdelaal is board
certified as Dr. Micono was.
On January 25, 2024, Dr. Abdelaal issued a forensic evaluation report,
indicating that Mr. Edwards was fit to proceed in this case. See Sealed Doc. 121.
The BOP also submitted under seal a certificate of restoration of competency to
stand trial for Mr. Edwards. See Sealed Doc. 123. The government will be
introducing into evidence Dr. Abdelaal’s report at the upcoming competency
hearing. In addition, the government will likely call Dr. Abdelaal as its only
witness at the hearing.
Similar to Dr. Danziger, Dr. Abdelaal was not able to conduct substantive
interviews or testing with Mr. Edwards. At various times, Mr. Edwards expressed
an unwillingness to speak with BOP personnel at MCC Chicago, including Dr.
Abdelaal, without his attorney present.
Dr. Abdelaal also reviewed inmate calls made by Mr. Edwards to his family.
Similar to the inmate calls that he made while at FCI Englewood, Mr. Edwards
conversations with his family primarily focused on bible verses and prayers. He
also continued to receive information and instructions from his mother and sister
on how to behave and conduct himself while at MCC Chicago. This is consistent
with Mr. Edwards’s inability to fully comprehend the proceedings or his situation.
14
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 15 of 23 PageID 914
He needed help and assistance from his family because he simply did not know
how to act or behave.
Because Dr. Abdelaal could not conduct any interviews or testing, “there
was no additional historical information obtained during the evaluation period at
MCC Chicago.” Instead, Dr. Abdelaal relied heavily on Dr. Micono’s evaluation
report, which was copied and quoted extensively throughout Dr. Abdelaal’s
report. Prior defense counsel also reiterated to Dr. Abdelaal that Mr. Edwards did
not appear to understand him or his questions. Thus, prior defense counsel was
still not able to consult with Mr. Edwards about the case or his potential defenses.
Despite the dearth of new information available to her, Dr. Abdelaal reached
the conclusion that “there was sufficient information to complete” her evaluation
report on Mr. Edwards’s current competency status. Dr. Abdelaal specifically
diagnosed Mr. Edwards with “other specified personality disorder” but noted that
his “eccentric behavior” could also suggest “schizoid or schizotypal personality
disorder.” Dr. Abdelaal assigned a personality disorder to Mr. Edwards based
primarily on his telephone conversations with his family. Specifically, Dr.
Abdelaal claimed that Mr. Edwards was attempting to conceal the content of his
discussions and spoke to his family about “how he should approach” his
evaluations. However, the recorded telephone calls equally suggested that Mr.
Edwards’s family was providing information to him about how he should conduct
15
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 16 of 23 PageID 915
himself and/or answer questions from BOP staff because the defendant had no
ability to understand the proceedings or his situation.
Dr. Abdelaal also claimed that her diagnosis was based on Mr. Edwards’s
“lack of remorse” with regard to the alleged offenses. In essence, she suggested
that she could diagnose a personality disorder because an individual accused of a
crime did not express remorse or admit to the crime when speaking with his
family. This thought process by Dr. Abdelaal was flawed and assumed that Mr.
Edwards was guilty, when, in fact, he is presumed to be innocent under the law.
Dr. Abdelaal acknowledged that Mr. Edwards “does exhibit some
characteristics that may suggest the presence of Autism Spectrum Disorder” as
well as “some data suggesting cognitive defects.” However, based on conjecture
and a flawed interpretation of Dr. Micono’s report, Dr. Abdelaal ruled these
conditions out in order to reach her ultimate opinion that Mr. Edwards was
competent to proceed.
An example of Dr. Abdelaal’s problematic analysis is her reliance on Mr.
Edwards’s “doctoral degree” in support of her finding that he could not have an
intellectual developmental disorder. As noted above, Mr. Edwards does not have
a doctoral degree in a rigorous field of study or discipline, such as physics, science,
literature or history, nor does he have a degree from an accredited institution of
16
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 17 of 23 PageID 916
higher learning. Instead, as Dr. Micono noted in her report, Mr. Edwards holds a
“doctor of practical ministry” from an unaccredited religious institution.
Dr. Abdelaal also claimed that Mr. Edwards “has communicated with
defense counsel, to some extent, in the past.” This is belied by the record in this
case. It does not appear that Mr. Edwards ever had meaningful communication
with his prior defense counsel. In fact, Dr. Abdelaal’s report confirmed that prior
defense counsel had no real ability to effectively communicate with Mr. Edwards.
Based on the foregoing, as well as the arguments and cross-examination that
will occur at the competency hearing, the undersigned will ask this Court to give
little weight to Dr. Abdelaal’s opinions.
4. Additional Attempts At Competency Evaluations By Dr. Otto
On April 26, 2024, Dr. Otto, the undersigned’s expert, attempted to conduct
a follow-up competency evaluation of Mr. Edwards at the Orange County Jail.
Sealed Docs. 178, 178-1 at 2. Dr. Otto was unable to gather first-hand information
from Mr. Edwards. Id. Similar to the two BOP experts, Dr. Otto reviewed case
materials and prior evaluation reports, as well as some recorded phone
conversations. However, he did not have sufficient information to offer an opinion
as to Mr. Edwards’s competency. Id.
On May 28, 2024, Dr. Otto met with Mr. Edwards at the United States
Marshal’s Office inside of the courthouse. Doc. 201 at 2. After meeting with Mr.
17
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 18 of 23 PageID 917
Edwards and attempting to commence his evaluation, Dr. Otto requested that the
undersigned come to the United States Marshal’s Office to assist the doctor in his
efforts to evaluate Mr. Edwards. Id. Thereafter, the undersigned arrived at the
United States Marshal’s Office and met with Dr. Otto and Mr. Edwards. Id.
Despite diligent efforts, Dr. Otto was not able to complete a competency
evaluation of Mr. Edwards. Id. Once again, Dr. Otto informed the undersigned
that he would not be rendering an opinion as to Mr. Edwards’s current
competency status. Id.
C. Additional Information Concerning Mr. Edwards’s Behavior
Since the BOP’s certification of competency restoration, Mr. Edwards has
continued to present an inability to consult with his attorneys or meaningfully
assist in his defense. For example, on February 14, 2024, prior defense counsel
attempted to confer with Mr. Edwards via a video-visit at the Orange County Jail.
Doc. 128. Within 30 seconds of this meeting, Mr. Edwards claimed he wanted
another attorney but then got up from the video meeting and left without further
conversation. Id.
After his appointment on February 21, 2024, the undersigned has made
numerous attempts to confer with Mr. Edwards by visiting him in-person at the
Orange County Jail and through the video visitation system at the jail. Despite
18
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 19 of 23 PageID 918
these efforts, the undersigned has never been able to meaningfully discuss this
case with Mr. Edwards.
In recent hearings, Mr. Edwards has also exhibited an inability to fully
understand or acknowledge the Court when it has addressed the defendant
directly.
D. Mr. Edwards Remains Not Competent To Proceed
Mr. Edwards maintains that the government bears the burden of
establishing that his competency has been restored, that he now has the capacity
to understand the consequences of a guilty plea, and that he currently understands
the rights that he gives up by entering a plea. Such an understanding requires an
ability to comprehend the federal sentencing guidelines, the advisory nature of the
guidelines, and to be able to relate to counsel those facts which would be relevant
to such determinations.
Should he proceed to trial, at a bare minimum, Mr. Edwards must have the
ability to provide counsel with information necessary to develop all potential legal
defenses, assist counsel in confronting the government’s witnesses, and he must
be in a position to make an intelligent determination as to whether or not he will
testify, and, if he so decides, to testify coherently and with sufficient memory.
In is current state, Mr. Edwards as no ability to perform any of the
aforementioned tasks or functions. As of this filing, he cannot even discuss the
19
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 20 of 23 PageID 919
most basic aspect of his case, much less assist the undersigned in developing a
defense theory. Moreover, the undersigned does not even know how or where to
begin a discussion with Mr. Edwards on the pros and cons of going to trial versus
entering a guilty plea. In sum, Mr. Edwards remains the same person he was at
the beginning of these proceedings – an incompetent individual who cannot
meaningfully participate in the proceedings or assist his counsel.
This Court should rely on Mr. Edwards’s in-court behavior, the
observations of defense counsel, and the Court’s own observations, all of which
point to the conclusion that the defendant’s competency has not been restored.
Moreover, the Court should assign little weight to the opinions of Dr. Danziger
and Dr. Abdelaal, both of whom were unable to conduct thorough evaluations of
Mr. Edwards, nor were they able to complete any psychological testing. In
contrast, this Court should give considerable weight to Dr. Micono’s report and
opinions, as she spent the most time observing and evaluating Mr. Edwards.
Accordingly, the Court should adopt Dr. Micono’s conclusion that Mr. Edwards
is not competent to proceed. The government cannot establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that Mr. Edwards’s competency has been restored since Dr.
Micono’s opinions were issued.
Lastly, the Court should reject any argument that Mr. Edwards is
malingering or feigning symptoms. As noted in Dr. Abdelaal’s report, the DSM-
20
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 21 of 23 PageID 920
5-TR states that an essential feature of malingering is the intentional exaggeration
of symptoms to avoid consequences. Here, Mr. Edwards has remained
incarcerated since his initial appearance on December 14, 2022. He is charged with
non-violent fraud offenses and has no prior criminal history. Thus, Mr. Edwards
would have a strong case for pretrial release conditions under the Bail Reform Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3142.
Mr. Edwards’s conduct is not consistent with malingering. He is not
feigning symptoms to avoid a consequence. At multiple hearings in the past year,
Mr. Edwards has asked the Court when he could be released in this case.
Unfortunately, because his competency status remains unresolved, the Court
cannot conduct Rule 5 proceedings, including a detention hearing. See Doc. 137.
Mr. Edwards’s actions have hurt him, not helped him in this case. His continued
inability to confer with counsel and the BOP experts has resulted in a delay of his
ability to seek pretrial release for a year and six months at this point in the
proceedings. If he were truly a self-interested malingerer, he would have thrown
in the towel long ago, and agreed to a competency finding so that he could ask the
Court to set pretrial release conditions.
Based on the foregoing, the more persuasive evidence and inferences
establish that Mr. Edwards continues to suffer from a serious mental disease or
21
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 22 of 23 PageID 921
defect, which renders him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to
assist properly in his defense.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Edwards’s competency to participate in the legal proceedings against
him has not been restored. Thus, the prosecution of Mr. Edwards is a violation of
due process.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Joshua Edwards, requests that this Court
enter an Order finding him not competent to stand trial.
Respectfully submitted on this 3rd day of July, 2024.
s/Andrew C. Searle
ANDREW C. SEARLE, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 0116461
SEARLE LAW P.A.
200 East Robinson Street, Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-952-0642
Email: andrew@searle-law.com
Attorney for Defendant
22
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 205 Filed 07/03/24 Page 23 of 23 PageID 922
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY on July 3, 2024, I filed a copy of the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court via the CM/ECF system. I further certify that all parties to this case are
equipped to receive service of documents via that system.
s/Andrew C. Searle
ANDREW C. SEARLE, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 0116461
SEARLE LAW P.A.
200 East Robinson Street, Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-952-0642
Email: andrew@searle-law.com
Attorney for Defendant
23
File and source
- File
- 205.pdf
- Size
- 190,064 bytes
- SHA-256
- bc283dfc6717815e57edc16c4202332c757b7098ba16cc2836e075e0eaa4a2f8
- Our copy
- 205.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.