Whether a trial court may deem a defendant competent based solely on the unexplained, unsupported opinion of a defense expert or defense counsel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the middle of his federal death-penalty trial, Brandon Council had a delusional breakdown, asking his attorneys to “subpoena God.” The District Court determined that Council’s break with reality raised a bona fide doubt about Council’s competence, requiring the court to independently conduct “further inquiry” with “adequate” “procedures” to determine whether Council was, in fact, competent to stand trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180-181 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1966); see also 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) (requiring a “hearing” on competency). But the next trial day, after defense counsel handed up an eleven-line statement that Council understood the proceedings and could communicate with his lawyers, the court declared Council fit to continue. He was sentenced to death. The Fourth Circuit held that defense counsel’s handing up of the statement was an adequate competency “hearing.” It also held that deference to defense counsel was appropriate because the District Court had to “balance” Council’s “right to be tried only if competent” against “the right to effective assistance of counsel.” The questions presented are: (1) Once a trial court has found a bona fide doubt about a defendant’s competence, may it deem the defendant competent based solely on the unexplained, unsupported opinion of a defense expert or defense counsel? (2) Once a trial court has found a bona fide doubt about the defendant’s competence, may it defer to (i) li defense counsel’s opposition to a competency inquiry on the theory that it is safeguarding the defendant’s right to “effective assistance” of counsel?