United States of America v. Richard Bly

New York, NY - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing his conviction arguing he was not competent to stand trial.

Defense experts concluded Bly was unable to adequately assist in his defense.

3

The District Court found the government expert's contrary conclusion and supporting

testimony more credible because he spent eight hours evaluating Bly and administering a

battery of neuropsychological tests. Defense experts did not dispute the results of those

tests. The District Court stated it considered the defense experts' submissions and

expressly acknowledged the defense experts' "personal observations of Mr. Bly's

interaction with counsel.”4 The District Court did not clearly err by finding the

government expert more persuasive than the defense experts.

1 United States v. Leggett, 162 F.3d 237, 241 (3d Cir. 1998).

2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

3 The parties did not dispute that Bly was able to understand the proceedings, which is the

other Dusky standard for competency. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).

4 App. 21.

3

This case was assigned to Judge McNulty after Judge Linares retired. Bly asked

Judge McNulty to make a second determination of Bly's competency based upon

counsel's belief that Bly's mental status had deteriorated in the months prior to trial after

the first determination. Bly contends that Judge McNulty erred when he denied defense

counsel's motion for a re-evaluation of competency. In fact, Bly had moved for a

reconsideration of Judge Linares's competency ruling. We review the denial of a motion

for reconsideration for the abuse of discretion.5

Judge McNulty declined to reopen the issue of competency on the eve of trial and

only around two months after the initial ruling. He considered the defense expert's letter,

in which the expert wrote that he "continue[d] to think as he did before.”

6 However, that

prior determination had been rejected. The Court reasoned that the new information

demonstrated nothing more than Bly's failure to appreciate the strength of the

government's case and his reliance on bizarre legal concepts. The Court concluded that

this was not enough to show Bly's inability to adequately assist in his defense. The Court

appropriately reasoned that the Speedy Trial Act dismissal of Bly's initial indictment at

Bly's own initiative and urging strongly undermined subsequent attempts to argue he was

incompetent. We agree.

II.

5 United States v. Kalb, 891 F.3d 455, 459 (3d Cir. 2018).

For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of

conviction.7