Amicus Brief: Council v. United States

The Fourth Circuit incorrectly determined that the trial court fulfilled its weighty responsibility of ensuring Mr. Council was competent to stand trial—and face the death penalty—when, rather than conducting a proceeding even remotely resembling a competency hearing, it deferred to an expert opinion expressed in a two-paragraph letter.

Trial courts have a duty to make an independent, evidence-based determination of competency. To that end, competency hearings should—and generally do— involve a thorough examination of psychiatric evidence, including live testimony and questioning by expert witnesses, a colloquy with the defendant, and other procedures, to probe and supplement the factual bases of experts’ competency determinations.

This standard practice, of a robust judicial inquiry into a defendant’s mental state once competency is judged to be in doubt, is mandatory, regardless of defense counsel’s position on the matter. And that makes good sense, considering that competency is a crucial right enshrined in our constitutional tradition. The trial court in this case failed to safeguard this right.