United States v. Osborne Henriques
698 F.3d 673, 2012 WL 5289931, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22333 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a federal court finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial, 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) mandates that the defendant must be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a reasonable period, not to exceed four months, for treatment and to determine restorability, even if the court believes the defendant's condition is permanent.
Facts:
- Osbourne Karl Henriques was indicted for drug possession.
- A psychiatrist hired by the defense determined that Henriques was incompetent to stand trial.
- The government then had Henriques evaluated by a psychologist at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who concluded he was competent.
- Subsequently, a neuropsychologist hired by the defense disagreed with the government's expert, also finding Henriques incompetent.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Osbourne Karl Henriques in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
- The district court ordered Henriques committed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a 60-day competency evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b).
- Following a competency hearing, the district court found Henriques incompetent to stand trial.
- The district court held a second hearing and, while stating its belief that Henriques could never be restored to competency, issued an order committing him to the Attorney General's custody under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) to determine restorability.
- The commitment order was stayed pending appeal.
- Henriques (appellant) appealed the commitment order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does committing a defendant, found incompetent to stand trial, to the Attorney General's custody for a restorability evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) violate the Due Process Clause when the district court has already expressed a belief that the defendant can never be restored to competency?
Opinions:
Majority - Benton, J.
No, committing a defendant for a restorability evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) does not violate the Due Process Clause, even if the district court believes restoration is impossible. The court reasoned that the language of § 4241(d) is mandatory ('shall commit'), leaving no discretion for a district court to bypass this step once a finding of incompetency is made. The court distinguished Henriques's prior commitment, which was solely for a competency evaluation under § 4241(b), from the required commitment for treatment and restorability determination under § 4241(d). Citing its precedents in Ferro and Millard-Grasshorn, the court affirmed that this commitment is required even with evidence that the condition is permanent, and any determination by the district court on restorability before this period is premature. The statutory period of up to four months is a reasonable duration under Jackson v. Indiana because it is directly related to the purpose of determining if competency can be restored.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the mandatory, non-discretionary nature of the commitment process for incompetent defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). It clarifies that a district court's personal belief or preliminary evidence regarding the permanence of a defendant's incompetence cannot circumvent the statutory requirement for a formal restorability evaluation in the Attorney General's custody. This solidifies a bright-line procedural rule, ensuring every incompetent defendant receives a dedicated period of treatment and observation before civil commitment proceedings under § 4246 are considered. The ruling prioritizes the structured statutory process over a judge's early assessment of a defendant's long-term prognosis.
