4/26/19

18 Code 4241. Determination of Mental Competency to Stand Trial, Federal Competency Evaluation. Heidi Freese and Judge Mariani What The Hell Are You Doing?

Link to Cornell Law:

18 U.S. Code § 4241. Determination of mental competency to stand trial.


(a)Motion To Determine Competency of Defendant.—
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.

(b)Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.—
Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).
(c)Hearing.—
The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d).
(d)Determination and Disposition.—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.
The Attorney General shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment in a suitable facility
(1)
for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward; and
(2) for an additional reasonable period of time until—
(A)
his mental condition is so improved that trial may proceed, if the court finds that there is a substantial probability that within such additional period of time he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward; or
(B)
the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law;whichever is earlier.
If, at the end of the time period specified, it is determined that the defendant’s mental condition has not so improved as to permit the proceedings to go forward, the defendant is subject to the provisions of sections 4246 and 4248.
(e)Discharge.— When the director of the facility in which a defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (d) determines that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the defendant’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant. If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, the court shall order his immediate discharge from the facility in which he is hospitalized and shall set the date for trial or other proceedings. Upon discharge, the defendant is subject to the provisions of chapters 207 and 227.
(f)Admissibility of Finding of Competency.—
A finding by the court that the defendant is mentally competent to stand trial shall not prejudice the defendant in raising the issue of his insanity as a defense to the offense charged, and shall not be admissible as evidence in a trial for the offense charged.


There was another fugitive run in Pennsylvania, Eric Frein. Here is what happened when his public defenders wanted a psych eval for competency...denied due to clear evidence of competency, just like with Shawn Chrsity. Interesting.

Frein Penalty Proceeding Delayed


Weinstein asked the judge to send Frein for a psychiatric evaluation, stating," if he is having a psychotic episode and we called on him, he couldn't help us."
Prosecutors then objected to the request, playing a phone conversation that was recorded between Frein and his mother on Saturday.
Frein told his mother he hadn't slept, that no one knows why he was put on psychiatric watch.
He talked to his mother about the case, stating he was unhappy that Weinstein was not asking any questions, saying, "Mike didn't question anything. I hate to say it, but I wish Tonkin was the defense lawyer. But they kept saying, 'no question, no question,' when there are so many questions."
The judge denied the motion after the phone recording played.
"We believe the phone call demonstrated that Eric was talking about his appeal.  He understands the prosecutor. He understood the role of his lawyer, the judge, and understood the role of the jury, and we are of the opinion that this is all Eric Frein trying to delay the proceedings," said Pike County District Attorney Ray Tonkin.

Were the public defenders a part of it because almost anyone would suspect he was faking it? 

Frein may have been faking a mental illness, but in the case of Shawn Christy that is clearly not happening, instead the federal public defenders are trying to fake that Shawn has a mental illness. This is a blocking, disruption, stalling tactic. A recording of a conversation of Frein talking to his mother demonstrated his understanding of court proceedings, so the judge ruled no psych eval. Since Shawn Chrsity is most certainly able to not only understand court proceedings and also able to represent himself pro se as he has done for seven months in 3 counties what the hell is Heidi Freese up to and what the hell is wrong with Judge Mariani?

Covering up wrongdoing of a politician who is a friend of the president could get them appointments and promotions. I had a large number of these happen with those who set me up for wrongful imprisonment and more. Yesterday I found out about another one who was here in Idaho. Some of them could be compromised to get them to commit malfeasance.

What went on for a decade since Shawn Christy was 17 years old needs to be told, the lies the Palins are continuing to tell about Shawn and the engineering of events during the 3 month run together need to be looked at in a court room. Courts are not just about justice for an individual, cases also change things in a positive way for others. Legal cases are how our society helps regulate and right wrongs.

There are huge issues that need to be looked at. Where did that USPS vehicle in Kentucky come from? Why was it sitting in the driveway of Timothy Gilliam brother of Dakota Meyer with the keys easy to find? Why even though Craig Christy notified LEOs Shawn likely was heading there and I posted IP hits from this blog on Shawn Christy Political Prisoner to help them why were not LEOs at the house and why was Dakota Meyer not there after all his taunting of Shawn? Who got Duane Chapman involved in the case, his producer or was it his own idea, or Beth's? Have I mentioned Gilliam is a rep for Mitch McConnell? Oh yea, I guess so. Interesting and just one of the oddities of the fugitive run they triggered intentionally by violating the Brady Rule...twice as there were two runs, the first one was pretty much ignored as Shawn was not in the right situation for their plans.

Two individuals involved in reality shows are tacked onto Shawns 3 month run, why is that? They don't want evidence Shawn would present in court to be seen. It needs to be seen and preventing that is obstruction of justice just like altering video evidence and disappearing one.

Let's look at this situation closely and figure out who meets the DSM 5 criteria and who is the victim of their pathological diseasedness.

No comments: