United States v. Bumagin, 11–cr–800 (WFK).
Decision Date | 15 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 11–cr–800 (WFK).,11–cr–800 (WFK). |
Citation | 114 F.Supp.3d 52 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Semyon BUMAGIN, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Jacquelyn M. Kasulis, James Donald Gatta, Kevin M. Trowel, United States Attorneys Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.
Zoe Jayde Dolan, Zoe J. Dolan, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 13, 2012, defense counsel requested the Court to commence proceedings to determine Defendant Semyon Bumagin's ("Defendant") competency to stand trial and assist properly in his own defense. Defendant underwent three separate competency evaluations, and a competency hearing was held on July 21 and 22, 2014 upon which the parties submitted post-hearing briefing. On December 10, 2014, the Court ordered an additional competency evaluation from Dr. Sanford L. Drob, PhD, a Court-appointed psychologist. After receiving Dr. Drob's evaluation in April 2015, the Court held a competency hearing on June 30, 2015. Having thoroughly considered Dr. Drob's evaluation and testimony, and based on the Court's own observations of the Defendant, the Court hereby finds as a matter of fact that the Defendant is competent to stand trial and to assist in his own defense.
The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of this action and with the three previous evaluations of Defendant undertaken by Dr. Monica Rivera–Mindt, PhD., in May 2012 ("Mindt Report"), by Dr. Dana Brauman in July and August 2012 ("Brauman Report"), and by Dr. Jill Grant1 of the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, ("FMC Butner") in April 2013 ("Grant Report"). See Dkt. 90 ("Competency Order") at 1–7; see also Dkt. 80–1 (Mindt Report); Dkt. 80–2 (Brauman Report); Jill R. Grant, Jill C. Volin, Amor Correa, & Tracy O'ConnoPennuto, Forensic Evaluation, Mental Health Department, Federal Medical Center, Butner, North Carolina (2013) (Grant Report). The Court also assumes the parties' familiarity with the testimony provided at the two-day competency hearing held on July 21 and 22, 2014. Competency Order at 3–7.
On December 10, 2014, following in-depth post-hearing briefing by both parties, the Court determined there was insufficient evidence to render a decision on Defendant's competency. Competency Order at 1. Accordingly, the Court appointed Dr. Drob, to conduct an additional competency evaluation of the Defendant. Id. at 12.
On April 7, 2015, Dr. Drob provided his final report on Defendant's competency to the Court. Sanford L. Drob, Forensic Psychological Report (2015) (hereinafter "Drob Report"). Dr. Drob's report is thorough and detailed. In the report, Dr. Drob stated "[t]he results of the current testing, if taken at face value, are indicative of a significant decline in [Defendant's] cognitive functioning since he was assessed [by Dr. Brauman] in August of 2012 and [by Dr. Grant] at [FMC] Butner in April, 2013." Id. at 14 (emphasis added). Dr. Drob noted that many of Defendant's test results were "consistent with his making a reasonable effort on testing" and Dr. Drob indicated that "my impression was that he was thinking about and even struggling with the answers each time in a manner that suggested that he was providing an honest rather than a manipulative response." Id. at 16. Dr. Drob, however, also suggested that certain of Defendant's results could be explained by "an effort to present such a decline [of memory]" and Dr. Drob expressed "some suspicion that [Defendant] may at times exaggerate cognitive deficits
on testing[.]" Id. at 17–18. Ultimately, Dr. Drob concluded that, while there is a "significant remaining question ... [of] whether [Defendant] is malingering or exaggerating cognitive deficits so as to mislead the examiners, counsel[,] and the [C]ourt," Defendant on balance is incompetent to stand trial and is unlikely to be restored to competency. Id. at 19–22.
Dr. Drob also discussed his concerns that Defendant could have been malingering, or lying about his symptoms, or at least exaggerating them. Id. at 47, 49–52, 54–57, 69, 73, 77. Specifically, Dr. Drob testified "it's very possible that on [one particular] test [Defendant] was attempting to present himself as having dementia
." Id. at 73. Dr. Drob explained that he ultimately concluded Defendant suffered from "a progressive dementing process [,]" but continued to note his concerns about the possibility Defendant was skillfully malingering. Drob Report at 21; Tr. at 44–47, 49–52, 54–57, 69, 73, 77.
Second, the Defense called Sergeant Martin Bumagin, Defendant's son. Tr. at 86–101. Sergeant Bumagin explained his father frequently forgot facts or could not remember salient details, such as his son's military tour of duty, his son's injury during his tour of duty in Iraq, his daughter's graduation from Columbia, or where he lived after the family moved to Florida. Id. at 90–91, 93, 98–99. Sergeant Bumagin testified that he believed his father to be suffering from some form of "cognitive impairment." Id. at 90. Sergeant Bumagin was not cross-examined by the Government. Id. at 101.
For a defendant to be competent to stand trial, he must have "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam) (internal quotations omitted). Competency is determined by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 410 (2d Cir.1995) () . Though some courts have found that the allocation of the burden of proof is unsettled, the Supreme Court has stated in dicta that the accused must prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 361, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) ( ).
The Court follows the competency procedure set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Pursuant to that provision:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Alli-Balogun v. United States
-
United States v. Campbell
...motion.4 That statute concerns the mental capacity to stand trial and undergo post-release proceedings. See United States v. Bumagin , 114 F.Supp.3d 52, 55–56 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ; United States v. Shenghur , 734 F.Supp.2d 552, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ; see also United States v. Hutchinson , 253 Fe......
-
Bass v. Rewarts
...clinic eight years prior to his indictment did not warrant competency evaluation prior to defendant's trial); United States v. Bumagin,114 F. Supp. 3d 52, 56 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)(competency evaluations of defendant written more than two years prior to competency hearing were stale and would not ......