United States v. Lewis, 12 Cr. 655(AKH).

• Decision Date: 20 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12 Cr. 655(AKH).,12 Cr. 655(AKH).
• Citation: 5 F.Supp.3d 515
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Regina LEWIS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

5 F.Supp.3d 515

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Regina LEWIS, Defendant.

No. 12 Cr. 655(AKH).

United States District Court,
S.D. New York.

Signed March 19, 2014.
Filed March 20, 2014.

[5 F.Supp.3d 517]

A. Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for United States of America.

Martin Samuel Cohen, Federal Defenders of New York Inc., New York, NY, for Defendant.

ORDER AND OPINION DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AND FOR RELEASE FROM DETENTION
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge:

Regina Lewis, a pro se criminal defendant, has written to the Court and the

[5 F.Supp.3d 518]

warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center complaining about the legality of her detention. As discussed below, the Court treats these documents (which are attached) as motions to dismiss the indictment against Lewis and for release from detention.

Lewis is charged with threatening a federal judge. As a result of her psychiatric problems, which have lengthened the criminal proceedings against her, and her violations of conditions of release, Lewis, who is presumed innocent, has been held in pre-trial detention for over a year and a half. She continues in that status while her competency to stand trial is further evaluated. See18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). She is hospitalized in the custody of the United States Attorney General to enable such further evaluation.

While the length of Lewis' detention is troubling, it is authorized by law and is consistent with the guarantees of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Lewis' motions are denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. Arrest and indictment

On July 25, 2012, the government filed a sealed criminal complaint, accusing Lewis of violating 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). Dkt. No. 1. That same day, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein signed a warrant for Lewis' arrest. Dkt. No. 2. The next day (July 26th), Lewis was arrested and provided with a court-appointed attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Martin Cohen. Dkt. Nos. 4, 6. In a hearing, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein ordered Lewis' pre-trial detention, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, finding that Lewis posed a danger to the community and denying bail. Minute Entry 7/26/2012. Lewis was detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York.

The next month, a grand jury indicted Lewis. The indictment was filed in this Court on August 23, 2012. Dkt. No. 8. In the indictment, the grand jury charged that:

On or about July 19, 2012, ... REGINA LEWIS ... did willfully threaten to assault, kidnap, and murder a United States judge ... to wit, on or about July 19, 2012, LEWIS made a phone call to the chambers of a United States District Judge in the Southern District of New York, during which she threatened to murder and otherwise harm that judge.

Id. The indictment stated that the statutory basis for the charges against Lewis was Title 18, United States Code, § 115(a)(1)(B). Id.

II. The Court conducts a bail hearing and sets a January 2013 trial date:

On August 30, 2012, Lewis was arraigned before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck and pleaded not guilty. 8/30/2012 Minute Entry. Later that day, the Court held an initial pretrial conference in this case, in which the government reported that it would produce discovery to the defense by September 11, 2012. Id. At the conclusion of the conference, the Court adjourned the case to a future conference on October 4, 2012 and granted the government's motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, in the interest of justice, until that date. 8/30/2012 Oral Order.

On October 1, 2012, Lewis, through her attorney Cohen, wrote to the Court to request an adjournment of the next status conference so that the defense could propose a plan for treating Lewis's mental health. Dkt. No. 9. On October 3, 2012, the Court granted that request and adjourned the case to October 15, 2012, and, on Lewis's consent, excluded time under

[5 F.Supp.3d 519]

the Speedy Trial Act in the interest of justice. Id.

On October 15, 2012, the Court held a second status conference in the case. 10/15/2012 Minute Entry. At the conference, the parties reported that the government had produced discovery to Lewis and her attorney. See Dkt. No. 11 (transcript). The defense reported that Lewis had been examined by an expert, who found that Lewis suffered from some trauma-related issues and needed medical treatment. Id. The defense requested a further adjournment of the case, so that they could make an application for Lewis' release and medical treatment based on the expert's examination. The Court granted the defense's request for an adjournment, adjourned the case three days to October 18, 2012, and excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act in the interest of justice. Id.

On October 16, 2012, Lewis, through her attorney Cohen, wrote to the Court to request an adjournment of the October 18, 2012 conference “to allow the parties to discuss [the defense's] request that the Court release Ms. Lewis, and the conditions of such a release.” Dkt. No. 10. The Court granted that request, adjourned the case to October 30, 2012, and, on Lewis's consent, excluded time until October 30, 2012 under the Speedy Trial Act in the interest of justice. Id.

On October 29, 2012, New York City was hit by Hurricane Sandy. Due to the hurricane, this Court's courthouse in Manhattan was closed from October 29, 2012 to November 2, 2013. Accordingly, the Court rescheduled the status conference to December 17, 2012. Dkt. No. 13. On Lewis's consent, the Court excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act between November 19, 2012 and December 17, 2012. Id.

On December 17, 2012, the Court held the third status conference in this case. 12/17/2012 Minute Entry. At that conference, the defense applied for bail, requesting that the Court release Lewis subject to a mental health treatment program of at least six months and possibly longer. Dr. Michelle Galietta, the director of Clinical Training, Clinical Psychology at John Jay College, testified that such a long-term mental health treatment program would help Lewis and that if Lewis participated in such a program she would not be a threat to others. However, Dr. Galietta noted that even if treated, there would be a risk that Lewis would continue to say things that other people will think are harassing. The government opposed the motion for bail. United States Marshal Eric Weiss testified that Lewis had a long history of making threats to judges and judicial employees, that there was a risk that she would carry out one of her threats, and that she had a history of violating court orders. After hearing the testimony, the Court denied bail because of the risk Lewis posed to the community. At the conclusion of the conference, the Court set a trial date for January 22, 2013 and granted the government's motion to exclude time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until that date.

III. The January 2013 trial date is adjourned due to a breakdown in communications between Lewis and her attorney:

On January 2, 2013, Lewis' attorney, Cohen, wrote “to inform the Court that Regina Lewis ha[d] requested that new counsel be appointed in her case ...” Dkt. No. 15. The letter stated that there had been a “complete breakdown in communication” between Cohen and Lewis. Id. Accordingly, the Court held a conference on January 14, 2013. Id.

At the January 14, 2013 conference, the Court, at Lewis' request, relieved Cohen

[5 F.Supp.3d 520]

as Lewis' attorney and appointed a new attorney, Richard Rosenberg, to represent Lewis pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. The Court then adjourned the case until February 1, 2013, to allow Rosenberg time to become familiar with the case and excluded time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until that date. Minute Entry 1/14/2013.

At the February 1, 2013 conference, Lewis, through her attorney Rosenberg, requested more time to prepare for trial. The Court adjourned the case to March 15, 2013 and excluded time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until that date. Minute Entry 2/1/2013.

IV. Lewis' new attorney seeks a competency determination; Lewis causes further delays by refusing to attend Court hearing:

In March 2013, Rosenberg retained Dr. Elizabeth A. Owen, a psychologist, to examine Lewis and determine her competency to stand trial. Dkt. Nos. 16–18, 20. At the parties' request, the Court adjourned the March 15, 2013 conference to April 4, 2013 in order to allow Dr. Owen time to examine Lewis. Dkt. No. 19. The Court excluded time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until April 4, 2013. Id.

Lewis refused to attend the April 4, 2013 status conference. Dkt. No. 22 (transcript). Accordingly, the Court adjourned the case to April 19, 2013 and granted the government's motion to exclude time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until that date. Id.

At the April 19, 2013 status conference, Rosenberg reported that Dr. Owen had completed her psychological evaluation of Lewis, and had concluded that Lewis was not competent to stand trial. The Court noted that if Lewis was declared incompetent she might face a lengthy detention and adjourned the case until May 3, 2013 to allow Lewis to consider her options. The Court granted the government's motion to exclude time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until May 3, 2013.

Lewis refused to attend the May 3, 2013 status conference. Dkt. No. 28 (transcript of 5/7/2013 status conference) at 3:8–10. The next status conference was held on May 7, 2013. Id. At the conference, Lewis stated that she was unhappy with the representation that she had received from Rosenberg. Id. at 2:24–25. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(b) and 4247(b), the Court directed the Bureau of Prisons to conduct a psychological examination of Lewis, Id. at 14:21–25. The Court adjourned the case until June 3, 2013, and granted the government's motion to exclude time for Speedy Trial Act purposes until that date, finding that it was “necessary to exclude time in order to pursue the question of whether or not Ms. Lewis is competent to participate in her defense.” Id. at...