Judge Norman Mordue
Humphries suffered a head injury in 2010. Finding reasonable cause to believe that he has a mental disease or defect rendering him unable to understand the proceedings or to properly assist his defense, the court ordered Humphries’ psychiatric examination by Martin. A magistrate judge found that Humphries had a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him and was able to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of legal understanding. The court rejected Humphries’ objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that he be found competent to stand trial. Despite mental ailments making him irritable and at times uncooperative with his attorneyand causing difficulties with concentration and impulse controlthe preponderant evidence supported a finding that Humphries is able to consult with his lawyer and is able to understand the proceedings against him. Humphries’ physician DeCamps offered no opinion whether he understood the charges. On the other hand, Martin reported that although at times uncooperative, Humphries was aware of the criminal nature of the charges against him, and could explain the roles of the defense attorney, U.S. attorney, and court therein.
