No. 25-5014
Phillip R. Durachinsky v. United States
Tags: competency-hearing critical-stages defense-counsel due-process effective-advocacy sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Where defense counsel reasonably believes that their client may be incompetent, but the defendant disagrees, does the Sixth Amendment require a district court to appoint 'special counsel' to advocate for the defendant's position at any competency proceeding?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Where defense counsel reasonably believes that their client may be incompetent, but the defendant disagrees, does the Sixth Amendment require a district court to appoint “special counsel” to advocate for the defendant’s position at any competency proceeding? iii RELATED CASES Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(b)(iii), Petitioner submits these cases which are directly related to this Petition: none
Docket Entries
2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-10
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-07-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-06-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 1, 2025)
Attorneys
Phillip Durachinsky
Kevin Michael Schad — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Kevin Michael Schad — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
Moez Mansoor Kaba — Hueston Hennigan LLP, Respondent