U.S. v. Hemsi
| Decision Date | 23 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1106,D,1106 |
| Citation | 901 F.2d 293 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sidney HEMSI, Defendant-Appellant. ocket 90-1038. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Michael D. Pinnisi, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Helen Gredd, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Adina Schwartz, New York City (The Legal Aid Soc., Federal Defender Services
Unit, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Before KEARSE, CARDAMONE, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Sidney Hemsi appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Vincent L. Broderick, Judge, finding him to be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him incompetent to the extent that he is unable to assist properly in his defense, and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241 (1988). On appeal, Hemsi contends that the court impermissibly found him incompetent solely on the basis of his comportment in the courtroom. We disagree and conclude that there is no basis for reversal.
In September 1989, Hemsi was arrested and charged with having assaulted a federal officer with a deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 (1988). The complaint charged that Hemsi, an occasional medical and psychiatric patient at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Castle Point, New York ("VA Hospital") since July 1989, had engaged in assaultive behavior toward other patients and threats toward personnel at the VA Hospital, and that on September 23 he had mounted a violent and unprovoked attack with a metal rod on a VA Hospital police officer. Following a pretrial detention hearing, during which Hemsi's behavior included blowing kisses to the Assistant United States Attorney, the government moved to have Hemsi examined to determine his competence to stand trial.
The court appointed a psychiatrist, Dr. Naomi Goldstein, who examined Hemsi, spoke by telephone with members of his family, reviewed pertinent records of the Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC"), where Hemsi was then detained, and of the VA Hospital, and interviewed MCC staff members. Dr. Goldstein concluded that Hemsi suffered from a major psychiatric disorder, having some elements of schizophrenia and some elements of a manic-depressive or bipolar disorder. Her report stated that it was "only on rare, non-threatening occasions that he is able to maintain his composure," and that Hemsi was "disruptive, paranoid, and there is very substantial denial and rationalization, making it difficult for him to focus on his legal needs." Dr. Goldstein gave her opinion that Hemsi was not mentally competent to stand trial.
At a hearing, Dr. Goldstein testified, inter alia, that though Hemsi perhaps possessed an intellectual understanding of the charges against him, he had a very grandiose self-image and an impaired sense of reality. She stated that his psychiatric disorder substantially impaired his judgment and his behavioral controls. In her view, his illness prevented him from acting effectively on his intellectual understanding, and he would "not be able to cooperate rationally with his lawyer in his own defense." During Dr. Goldstein's testimony, Hemsi interrupted more than a dozen times with ad hominem attacks on her.
Hemsi did not present any expert psychiatric testimony on his own behalf. Hemsi testified, responding to a brief direct examination and to a cross-examination that was made lengthy by the fact that his responses were often rambling, confused, irrelevant, or incomprehensible. Some of his responses reflected the grandiose notions testified to by Dr. Goldstein. For example, he stated that when he visits Buddhist temples, the monks embrace him because he has a "golden aura." Hemsi concluded his testimony by suggesting that the court send the prosecutor to a psychiatric hospital so that Hemsi could help him.
Hemsi's attorney, John Byrnes, testified in support of Hemsi's competency. He stated that he had been able to obtain facts from Hemsi that might allow him to construct a defense on Hemsi's behalf. Byrnes acknowledged that Hemsi was a difficult client who sometimes focused on irrelevant matters, that he had not asked Hemsi's view as to whether or not Byrnes should testify at the hearing, and that in general he was "not looking to [Hemsi] for judgment calls on this case." In response to a question from the court as to whether, in counsel's judgment, "Hemsi will assist properly in his defense," Byrnes testified:
Can he assist in his defense in terms of relating the events to me and in giving me help in that area which he has already done? The answer is yes.
Can he assist properly in his defense in terms of making all of the decisions that he should make? Whether he can do all of that rationally, whatever, I don't know whether I can answer that question.
At the close of the hearing, the district court found that Hemsi was suffering from a mental disease or defect, that he was able to understand the nature of the charges against him, but that he could not "assist properly in his defense." The court stated that proper assistance encompassed more than merely providing information and that it extended to comportment in the courtroom before a jury. The court noted that Hemsi's extended outbursts during the hearing strongly supported the view that he was not then able to provide proper assistance in his defense. Hemsi greeted the court's ruling with a profane and scatological barrage.
The court filed a written order stating that "it is hereby found that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to assist properly in his defense," and committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization and evaluation for a reasonable period, not to exceed four months. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Hemsi contends that the court impermissibly found him incompetent on the basis of his behavior in the courtroom. We disagree both with the suggestion that the court's decision was based solely on Hemsi's courtroom behavior and with the suggestion that a defendant's in-court behavior, to the extent that it is the product of a mental defect, may not be considered in determining his competence to stand trial.
the court shall commit him to the custody of the Attorney General for such period, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palmer
...understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him"); United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 295 (2d Cir.1990) (construing Dusky test as interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), which states that a trial court must find a defendant incompet......
-
Blakeney v. United States
...301. 63.United States v. Williams, 113 F.3d 1155, 1160 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 295 (2d Cir.1990)). 64. While defense counsel were of the view that Dr. Colley's examination of Blakeney was “preliminary” and incomplete,......
-
U.S. v. Quintieri
...And while a defendant may be found incompetent even when his attorney asserts that he is competent, United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 294-96 (2d Cir. 1990), "[a] failure by trial counsel to indicate that the defendant had any difficulty assisting in preparation or in comprehending the n......
-
People v. Johnson
...cannot continue in his presence has voluntarily absented himself. (But see Maxwell v. Roe , supra , 606 F.3d at p. 570 ; U.S. v. Hemsi (2d Cir. 1990) 901 F.2d 293, 296.) We find instead that even if the word should have been omitted, the jury did not construe the instruction to his detrimen......
-
Emotional competence, "rational understanding," and the criminal defendant.
...use of the word "'supplemental,'" evidencing "'a certain disorganization of thought process.'" See also United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 294-95 (2d Cir. 1990) (noting that the incompetent defendant's testimony was "rambling, confused, irrelevant, or incomprehensible," at one point devo......
-
Competency to Proceed to Trial Evaluations and Rational Understanding
...al. 1519United States v. Blohm, 922 F.2d 836 (S.D. NY. 1983).United States v. Duhon, 440 F.2d 663 (W.D. La. 2000).United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 295 (2d Cir. 1990).United States v. Nagy, 19 F.2d 139 (Southern District of NY. 1998).United States v. Timmins, 301 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2002......