Unopposed Motion for Hearing and Out-Patient Examination to Determine Mental Competency — United States v. Bowens
Summary
Document 47, filed May 6, 2022 in Case No. 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-EJK in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, is Defendant Emmet Bowens' Unopposed Motion for a Hearing and Out-Patient Examination to Determine Mental Competency under 18 U.S.C. § 4241, signed by counsel Andrew C. Searle. Counsel states a bona fide belief that the defendant may be unable to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense, and offers more detail in an ex parte proceeding. The motion cites the Dusky standard and asks the Court to appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist for an outpatient examination and then hold a competency hearing. It states the defendant is released on conditions and has had no issues complying with them.
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
“Unopposed Motion for Hearing and Out-Patient Examination to Determine Mental Competency — United States v. Bowens.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-flmd-396523-47-0-21ed3550af/
, SHA-256 fb1b36ffea9f37f4972fe4c4bbadaf6355d1d695a3b40baed4a9813ed19a63d1.Full text
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 149
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 6:21−cr−00141−RBD−EJK
)
EMMET BOWENS, )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANT EMMET BOWENS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR A HEARING AND OUT-PATIENT
EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE MENTAL COMPETENCY
The Defendant, Emmet Bowens (“Mr. Bowens”), by and through the
undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, for
a hearing to determine Mr. Bowen’s mental competency, and for an Order
appointing a local and duly qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to conduct an
outpatient examination of Mr. Bowens 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. Bowens states as follows:
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 150
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Relevant Procedural History
1. On November 10, 2021, a federal grand jury in the Middle District of
Florida returned an indictment charging Mr. Bowens with two counts of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts One and Two), and four counts of
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts Three through Six).
Doc. 1.
2. On December 2, 2021, Mr. Bowens had an initial appearance before a
U.S. Magistrate Judge, following his arrest in this case. Doc. 7. At this hearing, the
Magistrate Judge set conditions of release for Mr. Bowens. Id. at 7.
3. On March 10, 2022, at a status conference, the Court granted an ore
tenus motion to continue the trial of this matter, and set another status conference
for May 12, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., and a jury trial for the term commencing on June 6,
2022. Doc. 37.
4. Since the last status conference, the undersigned has spent
considerable time preparing this case for trial, including reviewing the
government’s voluminous discovery production, and drafting three pretrial
motions that were filed timely on May 5, 2022. Docs. 44, 45, 46. However,
following a recent communication with Mr. Bowens, the undersigned is now
concerned about whether or not Mr. Bowens is competent to stand trial.
2
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 151
Specifically, the undersigned is concerned that Mr. Bowens has a delusional belief
system which prevents him from meaningfully consulting with his counsel to a
reasonable degree of rational understanding about the material issues in this case.
The undersigned is unable to reveal more details concerning his recent
communications with Mr. Bowens in this pleading, however, if necessary, the
undersigned can provide more specifics to the Court in an Ex Parte proceeding.
5. Based on the recent communication with Mr. Bowens, 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.
Bowen’s mental competency. The undersigned is also requesting that prior to the
date of the hearing, the Court order an out-patient psychiatric or psychological
examination of Mr. Bowens to assist the Court in determining whether Mr.
Bowens is indeed competent to proceed in this case.
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
3
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 152
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)).
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
4
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 153
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. Bowens, the undersigned has a bona fide belief that Mr. Bowens will not
be able to “consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding.” Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402. Moreover, the undersigned is presently
unable to have a meaningful discussion with Mr. Bowens about the government’s
evidence and the theory of prosecution in this case.
5
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 154
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. Bowens and file a report of the
examination with the Court. This Court is then requested to conduct a hearing to
determine Mr. Bowens’ competency.
Mr. Bowens respectfully requests that his competency evaluation be
conducted on an outpatient basis by a local psychiatrist or psychologist. As noted
above, Mr. Bowens is currently released on conditions set by the Court. Further,
Mr. Bowens has had no issues whatsoever complying with the conditions of his
release. Courts have articulated that the government must offer evidence
establishing “the presence of compelling governmental interests[,]” which would
require an examination be conducted pursuant to a custodial commitment, instead
of on an outpatient basis. See e.g. United States v. Neal, 679 F. 3d 737, 741 (8th Cir.
2012); United States v. Deters, 143 F. 3d 577, 582-84 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Song, 530 Fed. Appx. 255, 259 n. 5 (4th Cir. 2013).
CERTIFICATION OF CONFERRING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL
Pursuant to the Court’s Criminal Scheduling Order (Doc. 16), the
undersigned certifies: (1) that the undersigned counsel conferred with opposing
counsel; (2) that the motion is unopposed; and (3) that the motion concerns matters
not covered by the scheduling order.
6
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 155
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Emmet Bowens, requests that this Court
enter an Order: (1) appointing a duly qualified psychiatrist or psychologist to
conduct an outpatient 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.
Respectfully submitted on this 6th day of May, 2022.
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: 407-203-3715
Email: andrew@searle-law.com
Attorney for Defendant
7
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 47 Filed 05/06/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 156
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY on May 6, 2022, 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: 407-203-3715
Email: andrew@searle-law.com
Attorney for Defendant
8
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.47.0.pdf
- Size
- 136,508 bytes
- SHA-256
- fb1b36ffea9f37f4972fe4c4bbadaf6355d1d695a3b40baed4a9813ed19a63d1
- Original
- No public link identified.