Motion for Out-Patient Examination to Determine Mental Competency — United States v. Edwards (Document 288)

Summary

Defendant Joshua Edwards' unopposed motion for a hearing and out-patient examination on mental competency in United States v. Joshua Edwards, Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, signed by Corey Cohen. It states that the undersigned was appointed as co-counsel on July 17, 2025 and met with Mr. Edwards on July 24, 2025 with Mr. Searle, and that Mr. Edwards was unable to speak about the case or anything relevant to the proceedings. It states that the undersigned has a bona fide belief that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). It asks for an order appointing a psychiatrist or psychologist to conduct an examination and for a competency hearing. It states that the government does not take a position.

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 Out-Patient Examination to Determine Mental Competency — United States v. Edwards (Document 288).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-joshua-edwards-dkt-288-m-d-fla-d416926054/, SHA-256 d225ae3b3d31a359677f1ed781aa2426e61a49eb026e61c0ee50262738c7f4e3.

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 288 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1728

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 6:22−cr−00201−WWB−LHP
)
JOSHUA EDWARDS, )
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFENDANT JOSHUA EDWARDS UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR A HEARING AND OUT-PATIENT
EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE MENTAL COMPETENCY

The Defendant, Joshua Edwards (“Mr. Edwards”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, for

a hearing to determine Mr. Edward’s mental competency, and for an Order

appointing a local and duly qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to conduct an

outpatient examination of Mr. Edwards to determine whether he 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. In support thereof,

Mr. Edwards states as follows:
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 288 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID 1729

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Relevant Procedural History

1. On July 17, 2025, the undersigned was appointed as co-counsel.

2. On July 24, 2025, undersigned and Mr. Searle met with Mr. Edwards

at the Marshall’s lockup to meet and go over his case.

3. Mr. Edwards was unable to speak about his case or anything relevant

to the proceedings.

4. Mr. Edwards is unable to assist counsel in his defense, tell counsel

what happened factually, or even have a conversation with counsel.

5. Based on the recent communication with Mr. Edwards, the

undersigned has a bona fide belief that the defendant in this matter 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.” See 18 U.S.C. §

4241(a). Accordingly, the undersigned is requesting a hearing to determine Mr.

Edward’s mental competency. The undersigned is also requesting that prior to

the date of the hearing; the Court order a psychiatric or psychological examination

of Mr. Edwards to assist the Court in determining whether Mr. Edwards is indeed

competent to proceed in this case.

2
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 288 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID 1730

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Legal Standards

As the Court is well aware, a defendant is not fit to stand trial if he is

“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.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a).

“The standard for competency to stand trial is whether the Defendant 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.” United States v. Hogan, 986 F. 2d

1364, 1371 (11th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added); see also Dusky v. United States, 362

U.S. 402 (1960) (hereinafter “the Dusky standard”).

When a motion to determine competency is made, “[t]he court shall grant

the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable

cause to believe that the defendant may” be incompetent under the standard

articulated above. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, a court must

sua sponte conduct a competency hearing if “information known to the trial court

at the time of the trial or plea hearing is sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt

regarding the defendant’s competence.” Tiller v. Esposito, 911 F. 2d 575, 576 (11th

Cir. 1990) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 (1966)).

3
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 288 Filed 08/04/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID 1731

The input of defense counsel regarding the competency of the defendant is

a significant part of the information essential in determining whether a legitimate

doubt exists as to a defendant’s present mental competency. Failing to raise the

competency issue before the district court is persuasive evidence that competency

is not in doubt. United States v. Rodriguez, 799 F. 2d 649, 655 (11th Cir. 1986).

Conversely, when defense counsel timely raises the issue, it must be taken

seriously:

Because legal competency is primarily a function of 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. Accordingly, the failure of defense counsel to
raise the competency issue at trial, while not dispositive, is evidence
that the defendant’s competency was not really in doubt and there
was no need for a Pate hearing. (For the same reason, a defense
counsel’s request for a Pate hearing must be taken seriously by the
trial judge.).

Watts v. Singletary, 87 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 1996).

In Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit held

that the trial court erred in failing to inquire as to whether a defendant was

competent to stand trial, where, inter alia, defense counsel proffered that the

defendant would not be able to assist in his defense due to delusional beliefs the

defendant was having. Here, based on the undersigned’s recent communications

with Mr. Edwards, the undersigned has a bona fide belief that Mr. Edwards will

not be able to “consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational

4
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 288 Filed 08/04/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID 1732

understanding.” Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402. Moreover, the undersigned is presently

unable to have a meaningful discussion with Mr. Edwards about the government’s

evidence and the theory of prosecution in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is requested to enter an Order under

18 U.S.C. § 4241(b) for a duly qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to conduct an

examination to determine the competence of Mr. Edwards and file a report of the

examination with the Court. This Court is then requested to conduct a hearing to

determine Mr. Edwards’ competency.

CERTIFICATION OF CONFERRING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL

The undersigned counsel conferred with opposing counsel; the government

does not take a position with respect to the motion.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Joshua Edwards, requests that this Court

enter an Order: (1) appointing a duly qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to

conduct an examination of the defendant to determine whether the defendant is

presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering the defendant

mentally incompetent to the extent that the defendant is unable to understand the

nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in

his defense; and (2) scheduling a competency hearing in this matter upon the

completion of the defendant’s competency evaluation.

5
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 288 Filed 08/04/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID 1733

Respectfully submitted on this 4th day of August 2025.

s/Corey Cohen
COREY COHEN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 657840 .
21 Park Lake Street
Orlando, Florida 32803
Telephone: 407-246-0066
Email: corey@coreycohen.com
Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY on August 4, 2025, 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/Corey Cohen
COREY COHEN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 657840 .
21 Park Lake Street
Orlando, Florida 32803
Telephone: 407-246-0066
Email: corey@coreycohen.com
Attorney for Defendant

File and source

File: 288.pdf
Size: 128,649 bytes
SHA-256: d225ae3b3d31a359677f1ed781aa2426e61a49eb026e61c0ee50262738c7f4e3
Our copy: 288.pdf
Original: No public link identified.