Joint Notice Regarding Requested Detention Proceedings — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 134)

Summary

Joint notice filed by the United States, through Roger B. Handberg, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and Andrew Searle, counsel for defendant Joshua Edwards, answering the Court's directive on whether Rule 5 and Rule 11 proceedings and a detention hearing may go forward after the Certificate of Restoration to Competency (Doc. No. 123). The Defendant's position is that the Court can conduct those proceedings now and that the Government is not authorized to have a detention hearing. The Government's position is that competency should be fully resolved first under section 4241(e), and that a detention hearing is then authorized because the Defendant poses a serious risk of flight. The Government says it will respond to the Motion for Pretrial Release by March 13, 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

“Joint Notice Regarding Requested Detention Proceedings — United States v. Edwards (M.D. Fla., Document 134).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-joshua-edwards-joint-dkt-134-m-d-fla-370e717bd2/, SHA-256 a754ba01291dfca31848e6b37dc411568938abdcd14e8b756a7abba87eab3248.

Full text

Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 134 Filed 03/06/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 630

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP

JOSHUA EDWARDS

JOINT NOTICE REGARDING REQUESTED DETENTION PROCEEDINGS

The United States of America by Roger B. Handberg, United States Attorney

for the Middle District of Florida, and Andrew Searle, counsel for defendant, Joshua

Edwards, and in accordance with this Court’s directive (Doc. 132), hereby file this

joint notice and state:

1. On February 21, 2024, the Court directed the parties to file a joint notice

“stating whether, given the Certificate of Restoration to Competency (Doc. No. 123),

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

which would also include a detention hearing, or if the parties believe that such

proceedings cannot go forward until all competency related proceedings are completed

in full.” Doc. 132.

2. The parties’ respective positions on this issue are set forth below.

I. The Defendant’s Position

The Defendant has filed a Notice and Motion for Pretrial Release (the “Motion

for Pretrial Release”) (Doc. 133), which sets forth the Defendant’s position and legal

authority on the issue of moving forward with a detention hearing. The Motion for
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 134 Filed 03/06/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 631

Pretrial Release is hereby incorporated by reference.

In short, it is the Defendant’s position that the Court can conduct Rule 5 and

Rule 11 proceedings at this point. See United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387, 407

(2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Smith, 764 F. Supp. 2d 541, 542 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 9,

2011). It is also the Defendant’s position that the Government is not authorized to

have a detention hearing because none of the factors set forth in § 3142(f)(2) are present

in this case, and that the Defendant should be immediately released. If a detention

hearing is held, however, it is the Defendant’s position that pretrial release conditions

should be set.

II. The Government’s Position

It is the Government’s position that issues of competency should be fully

resolved prior to Rule 5 and Rule 11 proceedings in this case. Section 4241(e)

requires the Court to hold a hearing, pursuant to the provisions of § 4247(d), to

determine the competency of the defendant. Until that point, competency is not fully

resolved. Further, the express language of § 4241(e) suggests that the competency

hearing should occur before the Court addresses release or detention under the Bail

Reform Act.1 See Order at Doc. 84 (finding, in relation to the co-defendant in this

1
Specifically, § 4241(e) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f, after the hearing, the court finds
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, the court shall order his immediate discharge from the facility
in which he is hospitalized and shall set the date for trial or other proceedings. Upon discharge,
the defendant is subject to the provisions of chapters 207 [release and detention] and 227 [sentences].”
(emphasis added).
2
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 134 Filed 03/06/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 632

case, that “a detention hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, 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.”).

Additionally, and especially instructive here, are the concerns associated

with attempting to move forward with a release or detention determination when there

is an unresolved factual issue as to whether the Defendant is malingering. Given that

the Defendant’s potential malingering is relevant to the § 3142 factors, including the

history and characteristics of the Defendant, it seems necessary for the Court to first

hold the competency hearing to make a factual finding on that issue. Only then will

the Court have the proper context for a detention determination.

It is also the Government’s position that, following resolution of competency,

a detention hearing is authorized because the Defendant poses a serious risk of flight

under § 3142(f)(2).2

2
Defendant’s argument that the government lacks statutory grounds to move for
detention is misplaced. The Court “generally needs no authority or specific grant in order to
hold a [detention] hearing.” U.S. v. Megahed, 519 F.Supp.2d 1236 at 1248-49 (M.D. Fl. 2007).
Although we are not moving for detention on dangerousness, Section 3142(e) is “unrestricted
and plain” that a detention hearing on risk of flight or danger to the community is warranted
if the government moves for detention under either § 3142(f)(1) or in § 3142(f)(2). Id. at 1247.

3
Case 6:22-cr-00201-WWB-LHP Document 134 Filed 03/06/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 633

The Government contends that evidence at the detention hearing will show

that conditions of release cannot be set in this case. The Government will also file a

response to the Defendant’s Motion for Pretrial Release on or before March 13, 2024,

which will further supplement the Government’s position on these issues.

WHEREFORE, the parties hereby comply with this Court’s directive and

submit the instant Joint Notice.

Respectfully submitted,

ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Kara M. Wick
Kara M. Wick
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0085578
400 W. Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-7500
Facsimile: (407) 648-7643
E-mail: Kara.Wick@usdoj.gov

/s/ Andrew C. Searle
Andrew C. Searle, Esq.
SEARLE LAW P.A.
200 East Robinson Street, Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: 407-952-0642
Email: andrew@searle-law.com
Website: www.searle-law.com

File and source

File: 134.pdf
Size: 88,817 bytes
SHA-256: a754ba01291dfca31848e6b37dc411568938abdcd14e8b756a7abba87eab3248
Our copy: 134.pdf
Original: No public link identified.