United States v. Rivera-Rivera

• Decision Date: 29 October 2012
• Docket Number: Criminal Nos. 07–018 (FAB), 07–019(FAB), 07–020(FAB).
• Citation: 900 F.Supp.2d 120
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Israel RIVERA–RIVERA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

900 F.Supp.2d 120

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Israel RIVERA–RIVERA, Defendant.

Criminal Nos. 07–018 (FAB), 07–019(FAB), 07–020(FAB).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Oct. 29, 2012.

Anita Hill–Adames, Anita Hill Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

FRANCISCO A. BESOSA, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In Criminal Cases 07–018(FAB), 07–019(FAB) and 07–020(FAB), defendant Israel Rivera–Rivera (“Rivera”) stands indicted on three counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, as well as three counts of conspiracy to import narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 963 and 952. (Docket No. 2 in all three cases.) The issue before the Court is whether defendant Rivera is “presently [sic] 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(d). The Court must make this finding by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the various sessions of the competency hearing concerning defendant Rivera's mental status, (Docket Nos. 141, 157, 220, 221, 222, 223, 302, 305, & 339), and having reviewed both parties' simultaneous proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, (Docket Nos. 352 & 353), the Court finds defendant Rivera COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDA. Defendant Rivera's Arraignments

After defendant Rivera was arrested on March 16, 2010, U.S. Probation Officer Nancy Mendez conducted a pre-trial interview and subsequently prepared a pre-trial services report. ( See Docket No. 305 at p. 4; Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 13.) Officer Mendez testified that defendant Rivera did not act strangely during the interview, was coherent, answered all of her questions in a coherent manner, and appeared to understand the process of what was occurring. (Docket No. 305 at pp. 9–10.) At the beginning of the interview, Officer Mendez told defendant Rivera that he had a right to an attorney, but he elected to sign a release form indicating that he did not want an attorney to be present for his interview. ( Id. at pp. 10–11; Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 14.)

During the interview, defendant Rivera was able to communicate to Officer Mendez extensive personal information, including his home address and telephone number; the number and ages of his children; his girlfriend's name; the amount of time they had been seeing each other and how frequently she stayed with him; his prior work experience; the duration of various jobs he held; the status of his U.S. passport; the model, year, cash value and registration of his car; the value of his home; the value remaining on his mortgage; the amount of income he received from social security benefits and food stamps; as well as his monthly expenses for utilities, his cell phone, and child support. (Docket No. 305 at pp. 13–30; Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 13.) In addition, defendant Rivera provided information about his 2006 arrest in the Dominican Republic for drug charges, and stated that he had traveled to the Dominican Republic approximately five times before his arrest. (Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 13.)

Defendant Rivera also disclosed to Officer Mendez a history of mental illness since high school. (Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 13; Docket No. 305 at p. 31.) He explained that he suffers from anxiety, schizophrenia, and hallucinations, and he was able to name the doctors who treat him. (Docket No. 305 at p. 33.) He also listed the type and daily dosage of the medication he received. Id. at p. 36. In addition, defendant Rivera revealed that he had attempted suicide several times by drinking poison and hanging himself both at home and while he was imprisoned in a jail called La Victoria in the Dominican Republic. ( Id. at pp. 33–34; Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 13.) He also reported hearing voices that control and manipulate him. (Docket No. 305 at pp. 37; Docket No. 207 at Exhibit No. 13.)

On March 19, 2010—three days after his interview with Officer Mendez—defendant Rivera appeared before Magistrate Judge Bruce McGiverin for the first of his arraignments.¹ In addition to informing the magistrate judge of his name, age, and highest level of education at the arraignment, defendant Rivera indicated that he understood the proceedings, that he received a copy of the indictment, and that he had discussed the nature of the charges with his attorney. (Docket No. 207 at Exhibit 5.) Upon his return to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico (“MDC Guaynabo”) just hours after the arraignment, however, defendant Rivera acted disoriented in time and place, constantly moved his arms and legs, and told MDC Guaynabo staff that he did not know his own name, that he heard voices and feels another person with him, and that he was at three places: court, home, and jail. Id. at Exhibit Nos. 11–M & 11–N. He also stated that he had “a lot of pain,” he became aggressive and angry, and he asked if he was going to be stuck with a needle because he had experienced such injections while incarcerated in the Dominican Republic. Id.

At what was to be his second arraignment, defendant Rivera appeared before Magistrate Judge Camille Velez–Rive on April 9, 2010. Because defendant Rivera had difficulty answering the questions posed to him, and because he appeared slightly disoriented, the magistrate judge noted that she was unwilling to find defendant Rivera competent to stand trial at that time. (Docket No. 207 at Exhibit 6; see also Criminal No. 07–019, at Docket No. 21.) The magistrate judge postponed the date of the arraignment until Dr. Carol Romey could issue a psychodiagnostic report as to defendant Rivera's mental status. Id.

B. Psycho–Diagnostic Testing of Defendant Rivera

1. Dr. Carol Romey's Evaluation at MDC Guaynabo

Dr. Romey evaluated defendant Rivera on May 10 and May 17, 2010 for a total of four hours, and issued a Psychodiagnostic Assessment Report on May 20, 2010. (Docket No. 206 at Exhibit TT.) In her report, Dr. Romey concluded that defendant Rivera “was not able to comprehend any component of the consent process,” “was unable to perform psychological tests,” and “showed signs of an active psychotic state.” Id. at pp. 2–3. Dr. Romey found defendant Rivera to be disoriented in time, situation and place; confused as to whether he was in prison or in a hospital; fearful and sad; and to have exhibited traumatic responses like crying, blockage, and shaking to any discussion of subjects like his children and incarceration in the Dominican Republic. Id. at p. 3. Defendant Rivera also reportedly suffered hallucinations in the form of voices during the interviews, and he stated that the voices have been with him since early childhood. Id. at pp. 2–3. The voices allegedly tell defendant Rivera when he can eat and what information he can reveal in the interviews, and they direct him to go for walks and to watch his cellmate while he sleeps. Id. By consulting documents and speaking to defendant Rivera and his parents, Dr. Romey compiled a clinical history report that includes many medical diagnoses of a range of mental disorders, including five diagnoses of depressive disorders, nineteen diagnoses of bipolar disorders, five diagnoses of anxiety disorders, five diagnoses of psychotic disorders, seven diagnoses of substance dependence disorders, nine diagnoses of impulse control disorders, and one diagnosis of a personality disorder. Id. at Exhibit VV.

Dr. Romey diagnosed defendant Rivera with, most notably, “bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, psychosocial and environmental problems, and problems related to interaction with the legal system.” (Docket No. 207 at Exhibit TT at pp. 5–6.) She concluded that defendant Rivera “is unable to fulfill minimal clinical criteria for competence to stand trial,” and recommended that defendant Rivera be considered for bail so that he could continue a psychiatric treatment plan in a familiar and safe home environment. Id. at pp. 6–7. “[I]t is expected that [defendant] Rivera will be able to stabilize his mental condition. Upon stabilization, [defendant] Rivera may be able to recover sufficient cognitive abilities to be able to participate in his criminal defense.” Id. at p. 7.

2. Dr. Jorge Luis' Evaluation at FMC Miami

In response to Dr. Romey's report, the government informed the Court that “the United States has evidence in its possession that the defendant [Rivera] is malingering” ² and requested that defendant Rivera be sent to a Federal Medical Center in Miami, Florida (“FMC Miami”) to be evaluated for mental competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. (Docket No. 35 at p. 2.) The Court granted the government's request and consequently ordered defendant Rivera to be sent to FMC Miami, where a forensic psychologist, Dr. Jorge Luis, conducted an evaluation from June 21, 2010 through July 21, 2010. (Docket No. 46.) Dr. Luis conducted three hours of clinical interviews with defendant Rivera, spoke to various members of the FMC Miami Psychology Services staff about their daily clinical contacts with defendant Rivera, consulted available legal documentation pertaining to defendant Rivera's case, and ultimately issued a Forensic Report on August 11, 2010. (Docket No. 77–2 at pp. 1–2.)

Dr. Luis informed defendant Rivera that the purpose of the examinations was to determine whether he is competent to stand trial and that anything he discussed might be relayed to the Court. (Docket No. 77–2 at pp. 1–2.) Dr. Luis noted that defendant Rivera did not appear to understand the information provided. Id. The report indicated that defendant Rivera exhibited organized and coherent thought processes, he was semi-cooperative and attentive throughout the evaluations, he did not...