United States v. Veliz, Veliz-Novack
623 F. App'x 538 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court is not required to sua sponte order a competency hearing when a defendant's bizarre, disruptive, or outlandish trial behavior can be more plausibly explained as a calculated or manipulative attempt to influence the proceedings rather than a genuine inability to understand the nature of the proceedings or assist in their own defense.
Facts:
- Narcisa Veliz-Novack (“Novack”) and her brother Cristobal Veliz (“Veliz”) were implicated in violent attacks that led to the deaths of Novack's husband, Ben Novack, and her mother-in-law, Bernice Novack.
- During the trial, Novack had several emotional outbursts, including weeping and exclaiming, 'why are you doing this to me, I’m innocent'.
- While in jail during the trial, Novack gave phone interviews to the press professing her innocence.
- Novack insisted on wearing an orange prison jumpsuit to trial, explaining, 'The world needs to know what has happened to this widow.'
- Veliz chose to testify in his own defense.
- In his testimony, Veliz claimed that Novack's daughter, May Abad, had abducted and held him hostage, a story that aligned with the defense's theory that Abad was the true orchestrator of the murders.
- Veliz also persistently denied being with his co-conspirators days before one attack, despite video evidence proving otherwise.
- At no point before, during, or after the trial did the defendants' experienced defense attorneys or the prosecutors raise any question as to either defendant's competence to stand trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Narcisa Veliz-Novack and Cristobal Veliz were charged with multiple federal crimes, including racketeering, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Following a two-month jury trial, both defendants were convicted on numerous counts.
- The district court sentenced both Novack and Veliz to life imprisonment.
- Novack and Veliz, as appellants, appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging, among other things, the district court's failure to order a competency hearing.
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 a district court's failure to sua sponte order a competency hearing violate a defendant's due process rights when the defendants engage in disruptive courtroom outbursts and offer outlandish, self-serving testimony, but this behavior can be interpreted as manipulative rather than indicative of an inability to understand the proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The district court's failure to sua sponte order a competency hearing did not violate the defendants' due process rights because their behavior, while unusual, was more indicative of manipulation than mental incompetence. A court must order a competency hearing only 'if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent' under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). The court found Novack's outbursts, press interviews, and choice of attire to be 'more indicative of a misguided attempt to manipulate the process' and garner sympathy than of an inability to understand the proceedings. Similarly, the court concluded that Veliz's 'unconvincing and outlandish' testimony, while 'transparently false,' was 'fully consistent with a calculated attempt to exonerate himself' by blaming another person, consistent with the defense strategy. The court reasoned that brazen perjury does not equate to legal incompetence. Furthermore, the court gave significant weight to the fact that experienced defense counsel never raised the competency issue, viewing it as 'substantial evidence' of competency.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for triggering a sua sponte competency hearing and the substantial deference appellate courts afford to a trial judge's firsthand observations of a defendant's conduct. The ruling clarifies that bizarre, disruptive, or even perjurious behavior does not automatically create 'reasonable cause' to doubt a defendant's competency, particularly when a more plausible, strategic explanation exists. By heavily weighing the silence of defense counsel on the issue, the court underscores that the trial judge is entitled to presume that if a true competency issue existed, the defendant's own lawyer would raise it. This makes it more difficult for defendants to later claim incompetence on appeal after engaging in calculated or manipulative trial tactics.
