[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
please the court.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
Devin Hyde, Deputy Federal Public Defender on behalf of Petitioner Appellant, um, Calamese Pige.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
He corrects us as well.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
In this case, Mr. Pige was, his due process rights were violated

[00:00:47] Speaker 02:
of his incompetency.

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
The evidence that was before the- That's not the standard, right?

[00:00:53] Speaker ?:
Is this a standard substantial evidence?

[00:00:54] Speaker ?:
Yes, the standard is.

[00:00:55] Speaker ?:
Is that that there's a doubt about, I think that's what I want to get to, right?

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
Are we applying the California rule in this case, or what standard are we applying?

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
Sure, well actually the California rule and the federal rule do not differ in this case.

[00:01:10] Speaker 02:
That's another confusion regarding the law of the state court of

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
second competency hearing.

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
A second competency hearing, meaning that there was a first formal competency hearing where a body of evidence regarding incompetence was considered and rejected.

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
And the California Supreme Court clarified that that was what it means to hold a second competency hearing in its newer case, People v. Rodas.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
But here, just like in the facts of Rodas,

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
that was declared without a hearing, without any contest as to whether or not he had been restored, and then two and a half years later, we have counsel declaring a doubt because his symptoms have resurged.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
The reason that matters is that the reasoning of people he jumps says, look, you've had a hearing, you've brought forth X, Y, and Z pieces of evidence, and I've told you that despite considering that evidence, despite it having been substantial, it did not rise to the level of incompetence.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
You can't do so on the same evidence that standard simply can't be applied here because there was no body of evidence that was previously considered and rejected to now be reconsidered when this doubt is raised to an

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
additional evidence to support counsel's initial declaration of doubt like an expert report.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
That I would say is in fact contrary to clearly established federal law, but contrary to an unreasonable application of, but that's also again because of this theory that there was a first hearing from which we are now that we are now augmenting or supplementing that's simply not

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
I'm watching.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
he can no longer receive assistance from Mr. Puget because Mr. Puget is now clearly delusional and is doing nothing but yelling over him.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
The court says, hasn't he always been this way?

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
And counsel makes clear, no, when I first joined the case, he was a bit difficult.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
no longer communicate.

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
The court rejects the doubt at that time.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
And then counsel, twice a day, raises a doubt for all of the time Mr. Paget is tried in absentia.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
And then by September 15th, the next time they appear in court after trial, after a presentation of the evidence has concluded and the jury is deliberating, counsel has now come with the corroboration of his supervisor, who also says Paget cannot communicate, and Dr. Howe's report

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
He is exhibiting paranoia, delusions.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
He thinks the prosecutor is on his side because his name is James and James is in the Bible.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
And she therefore says he's no longer rationally able to assist in his defense or understand, you know, the objective and means of his trial.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
But also within that report are the reports from the jail staff who have no skin in the

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
competent or not, but they say that he is now no longer taking his medication.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
But we now know, and the court should have known, that you at all times have a right to both competence and a hearing if there's substantial evidence.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
So the issue is not, oh, well, Mr. Fish, this is still what you would consider any time before the judgment, right?

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
Any time before judgment is pronounced, if substantial evidence arises, that is when the doubt is to be declared.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
Oh, and then?

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
Um, I disagree, Your Honor.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
The court never held a competency.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
specifically not going to entertain Dr. Howe's report here on the 15th because that might endanger our verdict, which is also a pretty difficult misunderstanding of the law as to when one can invoke or not invoke competence.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
The right to competence does not disappear based on whether or not it's difficult for the court to retract the case.

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
But in any event, the court said he was not considering it until the verdict came back.

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
But then when the verdict came back, he said, well, now we can see whether perhaps Mr. Paget's mental health is, whether or not we should be declaring a doubt.

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
I'm going to seek another opinion from the state for the point of declaring.

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
hearing to determine if there's doubt.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
Well there's not that I wouldn't call a hearing to determine if there's doubt but if that's what you would call it yes there's no the point is the court need need not hold a hearing to decide whether to declare a doubt because when the substantial evidence arises so too does the obligation this is not about you know but why not have a hearing to determine the

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
would the standard be other than that the evidence is not inherently unreliable.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
That's the thing.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
The standard for whether evidence is substantial is whether it is inherently unreliable, not to weigh the evidence.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
We have several pieces of evidence here, each of which singly and together would constitute substantial and otherwise not inherently unreliable evidence tending to show that there was incompetence.

[00:08:05] Speaker 02:
This is not just trial counsel's declaration of doubt, though that declaration was specific.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
You are allowed to look for it.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
And in this case, the court had one piece of counter evidence that it focused in on with laser focus.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
And that was the court's own opinion as to the way that Paget had behaved previously in court.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
Bear in mind, the court hasn't seen him for 20 days.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
By the time Dr. Hell, the Supreme Court has clearly not said that.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
against substantial evidence that exists.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
And this is said in this, this court notices that in Odle v. Woodford where the court says personal observations cannot overcome the significant doubt about Odle's competence raised by the clinical evidence.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
establishes clearly established federal law.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
The circuits are to apply that law and to maintain their own precedent unless otherwise instructed.

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
So I'm sorry I did not reserve time before but I will reserve one minute unless you

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
And I would suggest that at the outset, one of the reasons that the discussion goes the way it did is that in this case in which the ADPA controls, the clearly established federal law is what the Supreme Court has said with regard to entitlement to a competency determination.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
at that point?

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
Because, Judge Mendoza, it is also – it is also appropriate – and this is in the controlling Supreme Court precedent, this is in drogue directly – it is that the judge in the competency evaluation is aware of a variety of circumstances that are entitled to consider various things.

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
And this judge makes clear on the record that in the Court Street there has not been

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
a judge not involved in the case who does not have two years with Mr. Pichet.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
A new judge has allowed an inquiry by a psychologist who spends, I believe,

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
necessarily changes the situation and such that I must now formally order.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
The question is whether or not, as a matter of law, there is controlling precedent that says, in the court's example, if there is an opinion, however it was obtained, in effect, of incompetence, that necessarily triggers the renewed inquiry.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
So, number one, that is not the law.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
But let's even assume that it is.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
In other words, to your point, if in fact the judge was obligated to do something

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
then I would submit in response to that, that it is relevant, that within a short period of time, there is, first of all, what does the judge do in response to that?

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
No, not on that day, but shortly the judge says, I invite both sides, not one side, both sides to submit psychological evaluation of Mr. Paget.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
Only the government does.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
Only the government obtains a forensic psychiatrist, not a clinical psychologist who spends an

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:14:58] Speaker ?:
Why isn't that enough at that point?

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
And why isn't the judge compelled to, in fact, get that hearing?

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
Because, as of that date, I would say, politically, where the judge has indicated explicit

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
luring and manipulative behavior.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
judge's repeated interactions with Mr. Piaget that have caused the judge to indicate that he malingers, that he retaliates essentially.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
The judge, for example, also knows throughout this entire period of

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
I know you have experience.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
Mr. Piaget greets them, demonstrating a complete understanding of the trial that he's just been through, the charges, the lawyers, the circumstances.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
Piaget... Right, Counsel, but that happens a month later after then they have an opportunity to provide the medication that he needs, because clearly the medication is the issue for this particular individual.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
Then in my final second, Your Honor, just to that point, as far as if we're looking, if we want to zero in as closely as we can,

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
Thank you again.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
If I may, I just want to point out here that the Court has already picked up on that competency waxes and wanes.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
This Court has previously granted the right to competency hearing in as little as a month.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
that somehow means that Mr. Fuget was competent in September.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
At the same time, the same two and a half years of the court struggling with the defendant, sorry, can I ask a question?

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
Does this case boil down to whether or not there was substantial evidence on September 5th?

[00:20:23] Speaker 02:
Well, I think this actually can be considered a factual question, a D2 question.

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
But for that, I would look to Torres Vipunti, which actually very specifically answered the same question there.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
That trial court said, this guy's a malinger.

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
He's been annoying me for two years, or for years.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
And in response, the council declared their doubt.

[00:20:40] Speaker 02:
Council said, he is telling me that I'm a conspirator with you against him.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
And my consulting expert agrees there may be an issue.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
There wasn't even a report yet.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
And yet, what was held,

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
it's own personal observation of the case, that it prioritized that observation to the exclusion or ignorance of all the other evidence in the record that had been presented with, and that any reasonable jurist with the body of evidence they had been presented would have said that there

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
One more thing I would like to point out, if possible, the idea that a client has been cleared or is competent because they've been allowed out of 5150 care is not my experience in practice.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
My clients have been voluntarily committed at jail, but also brought to court before.

[00:21:36] Speaker 02:
I'm not aware of that being a fact that would negate one's lack of competency.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
And if I may check, just one more thing.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
I think what I really wanted to conclude here, right, is that competency is not, no one is alleging that Mr. Prichet was at all times incompetent or at all times competent.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
His ability to participate in his defense, albeit perhaps obstructively, in the months and years leading up to this date, September, this period of time, August 26th through about September 15th, doesn't negate the fact that on that day, first August 26th, he starts having outbursts in court.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
And then a week later, when his counsel declares that doubt, he says, he's been just as bad since last week as now.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
This is the worst he's ever been.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
I cannot communicate with him.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
That is what we're looking for here.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
Can counsel receive assistance from his client in preparing his case?

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
He said that on September 3rd, and the court says, I disagree with you based on what I haven't seen, based on what I've seen before.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
evidence of incompetency, such that the trial courts were objectively unreasonable in failing to grant Mr. Brigette a competency hearing and his conviction should never be vacated.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
This case is submitted.