United States v. Calix

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed bank robbery convictions, holding that the entire period for competency evaluations was automatically excludable under the Speedy Trial Act regardless of reasonableness, and that an ends-of-justice continuance for continuity of counsel was properly granted. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying a fourth competency evaluation where prior evaluations and observations showed no change in the defendant's demeanor. The district court did not err in denying a new venire panel after the defendant's disruptive noises were heard, as the court excused affected jurors and provided a curative instruction.

Holdings

1. The entire period was automatically excludable from the speedy trial clock because the Act excludes any period of delay resulting from any proceeding to determine mental competency, regardless of reasonableness.
2. The ends-of-justice continuance was proper because the finding that failure to grant the continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation was not clearly erroneous.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order a fourth competency evaluation because the three prior evaluations and the court's own observations indicated no change in defendant's competency.
4. The district court did not commit manifest error by denying the request for a new venire because it excused affected jurors, gave a curative instruction, and took suitable steps to safeguard impartiality.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Calix's statutory right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act was violated by the delay for competency proceedings (August 28, 2014 to January 19, 2016).
2. Whether Calix's statutory right to a speedy trial was violated by the continuance from March 27, 2017 to September 11, 2017.
3. Whether Calix's Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated when the district court failed to order a fourth competency evaluation.
4. Whether Calix's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated when the district court denied his request for a new venire panel after the panel heard him making noises.

Disposition

affirmed