Defendant's Notice Regarding Need for a Competency Hearing — United States v. Bowens, No. 6:21-cr-141 (Document 70)

Summary

Document 70, filed July 1, 2022 in Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, is Emmet Bowens's notice regarding the need for a competency hearing. Counsel agrees with the government (Doc. 68) that he does not contest the findings in Dr. Danziger's report. He argues that 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) makes a competency hearing mandatory once there is reasonable cause, citing United States v. White and United States v. Donofrio. He acknowledges that if the Court adopts the uncontested report, § 4241(d) requires commitment to the Attorney General. He asks the Court to set a hearing, proposing July 11 through July 14, 2022 or a date on or after July 27, 2022.

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

“Defendant's Notice Regarding Need for a Competency Hearing — United States v. Bowens, No. 6:21-cr-141 (Document 70).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-flmd-396523-70-0-ba7af65c54/, SHA-256 c9f3c1491d142e3abb72756ee00824c7d8a3ca97d9c0ff80c04838bf6e1ec764.

Full text

Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 216

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 6:21−cr−141−RBD−EJK
)
EMMET BOWENS, )
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFENDANT EMMET BOWENS’ NOTICE TO THE
COURT REGARDING THE NEED FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING

The Defendant, Emmet Bowens (“Mr. Bowens”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, hereby files this Notice to the Court Regarding the Need for

a Competency Hearing, pursuant to the Court’s prior Orders (Docs. 55, 57). In

support thereof, Mr. Bowens states as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Relevant Procedural History

1. On May 6, 2022, Mr. Bowens filed an Unopposed Motion for a

Hearing and Out-Patient Examination to Determine Mental Competency (“the

competency motion”). Doc. 47.

2. On May 16, 2022, the Court granted the competency motion and

appointed Jeffrey A. Danziger, M.D. (“Dr. Danziger”) to perform a competency
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 217

evaluation of Mr. Bowens. Docs. 52, 55. The Court’s Orders regarding the

competency motion set a deadline for the submission of Dr. Danziger’s

competency report to the Court. Docs. 55, 57. The Court also directed the parties

to “file separate notices indicating whether a competency hearing, or some other

related proceeding, should be scheduled,” within 7 days from the filing of Dr.

Danziger’s report. Docs. 55, 57.

3. On June 27, 2022, the undersigned timely submitted to the Court,

under seal, Dr. Danziger’s report concerning the competency evaluation of Mr.

Bowens. Docs. 66, 68.

4. On July 1, 2022, the government filed their Notice Regarding

Competency of Defendant. Doc. 68. In this Notice, the government stated that

they do not contest Dr. Danziger’s findings regarding Mr. Bowens’ mental

competency. Id. The government further requests that this Court “find that 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 or to assist properly in his defense,

and commit the defendant to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 4241(d) to undergo restorative competency.” Id. In their notice, the

government appears to take no position on whether or not this Court should hold

a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(c) and 4247(d).

2
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 218

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, the Court “shall” hold a competency hearing

“if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be

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)

(emphasis added). Moreover, the statute requires that the hearing be “conducted

pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d)” which provides a defendant certain

due process protections. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(c); 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d).

Section 4241 further states that if a court finds by a “preponderance of the

evidence” that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the defendant must be

committed to the Attorney General for hospitalization until it can be determined

whether a probability exists that the defendant will regain the capacity to be tried.

18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). The Eleventh Circuit has held that “this statute is mandatory

and that the district court [does] not have the authority to circumvent the

hospitalization.” United States v. Donofrio, 896 F.2d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir. 1990); see

also United States v. Cobble, 724 F. App’x 753, 754 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“A

district court has no authority to circumvent the statutory mandate that a person

found mentally incompetent must be committed to the Attorney General for

hospitalization.”).

3
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 219

In addition, courts have interpreted the language in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) as

mandating or requiring a hearing upon the court’s finding of a “reasonable cause”

to believe the defendant has a mental disease. United States v. White, 887 F.2d 705,

710 (6th Cir. 1989); Gaddis v. United States, No. 91-3885, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS

10008961 (6th Cir. April 29, 1992) (unpublished). In White, the Sixth Circuit stated

as follows:

We conclude that the provision for a hearing is mandatory upon a
determination of reasonable cause to believe that the defendant is
incompetent to stand trial; consequently, the only commitment that is
proper at this stage of the proceedings is one for a thirty-day
examination under § 4241(b). That Congress intended that the
defendant be provided a hearing before hospitalization for treatment
is apparent from the provision that “the court shall grant the motion”
for a hearing to determine mental competency or “shall order such a
hearing on its own motion” if reasonable cause to believe that
defendant is incompetent to stand trial exists. Use of the word “shall”
indicates a mandatory intent unless a convincing argument to the
contrary is made. Legislative history forecloses any doubt that
Congress intended that a hearing be mandatory. The Senate Report at
various points indicates both that the court “must order a hearing . . .
if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant is presently
incompetent to stand trial,” and that “it is mandatory that the court
order a hearing if there is reasonable cause.”

White, 887 F.2d at 710 (internal citations omitted).

To be clear, the undersigned concurs with the government in that he does

not contest the findings in Dr. Danziger’s report with regard to Mr. Bowens’

mental competency. In light of Dr. Danziger’s report, there is “reasonable cause

to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or

4
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 220

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). Because “reasonable cause”

has been triggered, this Court is now required to conduct a competency hearing.

See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); White, 887 F.2d at 710.

The undersigned acknowledges that if the Court adopts Dr. Danziger’s

uncontested report at the hearing, and finds by a preponderance of the evidence

that Mr. Bowens is incompetent to proceed, the statute and binding precedent will

require that Mr. Bowens be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for

treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d); Donofrio, 896 F.2d at 1303. However, before we

reach that point, the Court is still required to conduct a competency hearing, even

if such a hearing is nothing more than a formality. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); White,

887 F.2d at 710. Therefore, the undersigned requests that this Court set a

competency hearing so that the Court can make the appropriate findings on the

record. The undersigned respectfully proposes the following dates for the

competency hearing: July 11, 2022 through July 14, 2022, or to a date that is

convenient for the Court’s schedule on or after July 27, 2022. 1

1 The undersigned was informed just yesterday that Mr. Bowens is currently positive with
COVID-19. Therefore, the undersigned is requesting the week of July 11, 2022 or later so that Mr.
Bowens is no longer contagious and can attend the hearing in-person. Moreover, the undersigned
is currently unable to confer with Mr. Bowens in-person about the anticipated competency
hearing due to Mr. Bowens’ current COVID-19 status. Lastly, the undersigned will be on a pre-
paid family vacation starting on July 15, 2022 and continuing through July 25, 2022.
5
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 221

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Emmet Bowens, respectfully requests that

this Court schedule a competency hearing and proposes the following dates for

the competency hearing: July 11, 2022 through July 14, 2022; or to a date that is

convenient for the Court’s schedule on or after July 27, 2022.

Respectfully submitted on this 1st day of July, 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

6
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 70 Filed 07/01/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 222

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY on July 1, 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.

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.70.0.pdf
Size: 128,795 bytes
SHA-256: c9f3c1491d142e3abb72756ee00824c7d8a3ca97d9c0ff80c04838bf6e1ec764
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.70.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.