United States v. Reese
| Decision Date | 05 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 18-39 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RONALD REESE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Congress mandates criminal defendants with mental illness found incompetent to stand trial must be committed by the Attorney General to a suitable facility for a reasonable period of time to evaluate whether the defendant can eventually be found competent for trial. We today study this mandate as applied to a former police officer suffering with dementia whom all parties agree is presently incompetent to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense. The issue is what happens to him next. The presently incompetent defendant raises a procedural due process challenge to Congress' mandate relying on three doctors' opinions formed over four partial days of evaluation finding he may never be competent for trial and immediate commitment for any period of time violates his liberty interests. We agree with every court of appeals facing this issue in finding Congress' mandate affords substantial due process protections by requiring the defendant be committed for a reasonable time not exceeding four months and our extra protection requiring immediate and regular monthly reports on the defendant's prognosis while a suitable Federal Medical Center evaluates his ability to proceed to trial. We deny the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and grant the United States' motion for commitment in the accompanying Order.
A grand jury of this Court returned a multi-count indictment charging retired police officer Ronald Reese with mail and wire fraud and money laundering. Mr. Reese allegedly told senior citizens they won lotteries and instructed the senior citizens to pay him fees to collect the lottery winnings and then laundered the paid fees including through accounts of co-conspirators. We originally set trial for April 2, 2018 and, with the United States' consent, continued trial until August 6, 2018.1
After meeting Mr. Reese, his counsel expressed concern with his ability to rationally participate in his defense.2 At a July 23, 2018 hearing on Defendant's contested motion for a second continuance, we learned Mr. Reese specifically could not remember facts, or know anything about, the charges against him. Counsel worried Mr. Reese's memory would affect his ability to participate in his own defense in preparation for and during trial.3 Defendant's counsel moved to continue his trial until a medical professional could evaluate his competency to stand trial.4 On July 23, 2018 we ordered Mr. Reese undergo a competency evaluation with forensic psychiatrist Dr. Pogos H. Voskanian, M.D., and extended the trial deadline to October 29, 2018.5
Dr. Voskanian's review.
On July 24, 2018, Dr. Voskanian interviewed Mr. Reese and Ms. Tori Reese, his daughter.6 In his report, Dr. Voskanian concluded Mr. Reese is not competent to stand trial:
Mr. Reese's factual understanding and presentation of his understanding of legal proceedings against him was barely acceptable but notably below a level that would be expected of a former law enforcement officer. [Mr. Reese]'s ability to cooperate with his attorney is inadequate and notably below what would be expected. Therefore, at the current time, it is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mr. Ronald Reese is not competent to stand trial.7
Mr. Voskanian also wrote:
[Mr. Reese]'s presentation of mental status examination could be a result of an underlying medical condition, which needs to be addressed as soon as possible. The medical assessment at the current time is more essential and can better explain changes in his mental state and personality, whether these changes can be reversed with appropriate treatment, and whether or not he can be restored to competency to stand trial.8
Dr. Cooke's review.
Mr. Reese's counsel retained Dr. Gerald Cooke, Ph.D., a clinical and forensic psychologist, to evaluate Mr. Reese. Dr. Cooke evaluated Mr. Reese on August 3 and September 7, 2018.9 Dr. Cooke performed a "DRS-2" test to assess whether Mr. Reese has dementia.10 Dr. Cooke noted Mr. Reese's total score 11
Dr. Cooke also administered the Test of Memory Malingering ("TOMM") to determine whether Mr. Reese was feigning his memory problems. Mr. Reese scored "around [the] expectancy for those who are suffering from dementia."12 Dr. Cooke explained this score shows "[Mr. Reese] is investing effort in memory tasks and is not malingering memory problems."13
Dr. Cooke also assessed Mr. Reese's understanding of the nature and consequences of his alleged crimes. Dr. Cooke wrote "[w]hat might appear to be occasional evasiveness in discussing the offense behavior with him may be a compensation for memory deficits."14 Dr. Cooke further opined Mr. Reese's "inability to grasp the reality of what he is facing, and his severe memory deficits, compromise his ability to aid in his defense."15
Dr. Cooke diagnosed Mr. Reese with "Major Neurocognitive Disorder (Dementia), . . . includ[ing] possible Alzheimer's Disease and possible Vascular Neurocognitive Disorder."16 Dr. Cooke opined "[b]ased on the cognitive testing and the interviewing around competency issues . . . Mr. Reese is incompetent to proceed legally because he lacks the ability to aid his attorney inpreparing a rational defense."17 Dr. Cooke concluded "[u]nless the medical [or geriatric] evaluation indicates otherwise, the course of the illness I have diagnosed is progressive, and therefore the likelihood of him being returned to competency is minimal."18
Dr. Tomko's review.
On August 28, 2018, Dr. Linda P. Tomko, M.D., a geriatrician at Jefferson Health, assessed Mr. Reese. After the assessment, Dr. Tomko noted Mr. Reese's "memory deficits make obtaining a detailed medical history from him difficult."19 She noted his "current physical medical evaluation reveals a 74 year old with cognitive and memory issues."20 Dr. Tomko concluded "Mr. Reese is not competent to help with his defense" and "has progressive dementia and his deficits will continue to worsen over time."21
On September 24, 2018, following Dr. Tomko's assessment, Dr. Cooke offered an addendum to his earlier report, finding "Dr. Tomko and I are in agreement that Mr. Reese suffers from dementia, that his deficits will continue to worsen over time, and that he is not competent to aid in his defense."22
Mr. Reese moves to dismiss the indictment arguing he is incompetent to stand trial and his competence cannot be restored. The United States opposing dismissal arguing if we find Mr. Reese incompetent to stand trial, Congress mandates we commit him to the Attorney General's custody for hospitalization under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) regardless of whether his competence can be restored.
We held a hearing to determine Mr. Reese's competency to stand trial. After review of the doctor's opinions, the United States admits Mr. Reese is presently not competent for trial. Mr. Reese and the United States did not offer witness testimony but presented oral argument onwhether we should today dismiss the indictment because - in three doctors' view - he will not recover from dementia and placing him in a federal medical facility to evaluate his present mental defect is inequitable. Mr. Reese's counsel further argues Congress' mandatory language requiring we shall commit Mr. Reese to a suitable facility for evaluation is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Reese given his ongoing dementia.
After oral argument and careful review of detailed medical records, we deny Mr. Reese's Motion to dismiss the indictment and grant the United States' motion for detention. Mindful of the doctors' present evaluations, we allow Mr. Reese to self-report to a federal medical center and require the federal medical center to timely provide us with status reports on Mr. Reese's ongoing mental defect and competency to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense.
Mr. Reese argues the assessments of three medical professionals compel a finding he is incompetent to stand trial. The United States agrees Mr. Reese provides "sufficient evidence for the Court to find by a preponderance of evidence that [he] is currently mentally incompetent to stand trial."23
Congress defines our role in determining whether Mr. Reese is competent to stand trial:
At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of the sentence, the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The 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 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.24
Congress defines the standard for competency:
If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence 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, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General.25
To be competent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial