01-0263 State v. Meeks

Listen to this article

“The court’s consideration of the lay testimony was particularly appropriate in this case where, as appellate counsel concedes, Meeks ‘can relate facts regarding his crime and can even answer questions about the historical facts,’ but where, appellate counsel asserts, Meeks ‘has no comprehension or understanding of the legal process.’ Because the defense was seeking to establish that Meeks was too cognitively impaired to proceed, it was logical for the State to counter with evidence establishing that his mental condition had not changed since the time Scholle represented him and that, when she did so, Scholle deemed Meeks competent to proceed.”

Further, “[a]s Meeks all but concedes, his understanding of the 1997 legal proceeding was relevant to the court’s determination of his competency to proceed in 2000. The judge did not testify, but did carefully consider the transcribed record and her recollection of the 1997 proceeding. That was proper. We see no substantive difference between a judge’s observations of a defendant’s demeanor at the time competency is challenged and the judge’s observations of the defendant at an earlier proceeding; both may be probative.”

And, even though the court-appointed attorney who had represented defendant in earlier proceedings testified concerning her opinion as to defendant’s competency, that did not improperly violate the attorney-client privilege because Ms. Scholle’s testimony did not relate any specific conversations she had with him and she remained an officer of the court, obligated to assist the judicial effort to make one of the justice system’s most fundamental findings – whether a defendant understands the proceedings and can assist in the defense.

“And just as defense counsel must be candid in expressing an opinion about a client’s competency, courts, in turn, should understand that counsel’s opinion derives, in substantial part, from confidential conversations with the client. Therefore, careful courts, under most circumstances, will give due weight to counsel’s opinion without testing it with questions likely to expose the details of client conversations and other privileged communications…. Here, the court did not improperly consider privileged communications. Explicitly, Ms. Scholle did not relate any of her conversations with Meeks or testify about the substance of any other privileged communications. Implicitly, of course, she conveyed that she had had privileged conversations with Meeks about his cases, allowing her to conclude that, at the times she represented him, he was competent to proceed. But that conveyance is inevitable, and quite proper.”

Finally, we conclude that the trial court properly denied defense counsel’s repeated request for a competency re-examination.

“As the details of these post-competency determination proceedings reveal, at each stage where counsel again raised the competency issue, Judge Konkel carefully compared the new psychiatric and psychological reports to the evidence that had come before Judge Lamelas [at the competency hearing]. … Judge Konkel continued to consider defense counsel’s view. Judge Konkel continued to consider Meeks’s demeanor and in-court communication. Trial counsel never presented anything to establish any substantial change in Meeks’s condition or circumstances that would have altered Judge Lamelas’s competency determination. Therefore, we conclude, Judge Konkel correctly denied the repeated requests for an additional evaluation and hearing.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

CONCURRING OPINION: FINE, J. I agree with the result in this appeal but cannot join in the majority opinion for the reasons explained below.

The majority opines that a trial court may consider the opinion of the lawyer representing a defendant at a competency hearing as to whether that defendant is competent. I disagree.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Schudson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Eileen W. Pray, Madison

For Respondent: Howard B. Eisenberg, Milwaukee