United States v. Zavesky

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the information before the district court was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to investigate further defendant's mental competency; while the preferred practice would include the presence of the defendant when it appears likely that the defendant and the lawyer are at odds about the necessity of a competency evaluation, the court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the process and procedures undertaken by the district court were sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process; defendant's asserted lack of notice and opportunity to be personally heard would constitute, at most, a trial error; even assuming a constitutional violation, defendant has not demonstrated prejudice that resulted from the committal process; the committal process did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial where defendant managed to work through three different lawyers, requested motions to continue, and failed to identify any prejudice caused by any period of delay; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A), specifically excludes from consideration delay resulting from an examination to determine mental competency; defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zavesky" on Justia Law