UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
v. :
: Case No. 1:17-cr-00220-TSC
LaFONDA MOORE-TERRY, :
:
Defendant. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant was arrested on November 10, 2017, and charged by complaint with one count
of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. She made her initial appearance before the
undersigned on November 13, 2017, at which time the government moved to temporarily detain
Defendant and for an initial mental competency screening by a psychologist associated with the
District of Columbia Department of Behavioral Health, Pretrial and Assessment Branch (“DBH”).
The undersigned ordered Defendant to undergo such an evaluation. On November 14, 2017,
Defendant was indicted on one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113. When Defendant
appeared for her arraignment on November 21, 2017, the undersigned found, based on the initial
competency screening report prepared by the DBH psychologist, that there was reasonable cause
to believe that a full mental competency evaluation of Defendant was warranted. Accordingly, on
Defendant’s motion, the Court stayed the arraignment and thereafter ordered that Defendant be
committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period not to exceed 30 days for placement
in a suitable facility for a competency evaluation, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241,
4247(b) and (c), and Local Criminal Rule 57.l 7(a)(14). [Dkt. 6]. Further, at that proceeding
Defendant conceded pretrial detention and waived her right to written findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
On December 5, 2017, Defendant arrived at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell (“FMC
Carswell”) for the evaluation. On December 20, 2017, the facility requested an extension of 15
days to formulate a more thorough diagnostic impression and opinion as to Defendant’s
competency to stand trial, which was granted. [Dkt. 11]. A competency hearing was ultimately
scheduled for February 8, 2018.
On January 30, 2018, the Court received the forensic evaluation of Defendant from a
forensic psychologist at FMC Carswell concluding that Defendant “is not suffering from a mental
disease or defect which would render her unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
proceedings against her, to assist properly in her own defense, or to understand the consequences
of pleading guilty to the charges against her.” Forensic Evaluation at 7–8. The report found that
Defendant had begun taking antipsychotic medication just prior to her initial competency
screening “and conveyed notable symptom improvement since that time.” Id. at 4. Moreover, she
has continued to be compliant with her medication regimen since that time. Id. Defendant attended
and cooperated in all evaluation sessions and “easily built rapport” with the evaluator. Id. Her
responses to the evaluator’s questions were relevant and her thoughts were logical and future-
oriented. Id. Her speech was clear and intelligent. Moreover, during her stay at FMC Carswell
she effectively managed her own phone and commissary accounts, sought medical assistance when
needed, and maintained appropriate personal hygiene without assistance. Id.
The evaluator administered a standardized interview designed to assess a Defendant’s
competency to stand trial known as the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised, or
ECST-R. Id. During this interview, Defendant was able to speak about the circumstances
surrounding her arrest with little difficulty. Id. at 6. She displayed good factual knowledge of
courtroom procedures and appropriate courtroom demeanor. Id. She understood the roles of
judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and described her relationship with her attorney in
positive terms. Id. In addition, she displayed an understanding of the difference between pleading
guilty and pleading not guilty. Id.
Based on this evidence, the Forensic Evaluation finds that “[w]ith regard to her competency
to stand trial, [Defendant’s] prognosis is good, so long as she maintains adherence to her prescribed
. . . medication.” Id. at 7. It further concludes that Defendant “has demonstrated the ability to
retain legal and Court concepts and apply these concepts to her case in a rational manner” and has
“displayed no psychological deficit that would prevent her from assisting her attorney in her
defense.” Id.
A competency hearing was held on February 8, 2018, as required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(c)
and 4247(d). At that hearing, neither Defendant’s counsel nor the government objected to the
findings and conclusions of the Forensic Evaluation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the
record at the hearing and in this Order, it is hereby
ORDERED that upon consideration of the entire record herein, the undersigned finds by
a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant has a “sufficient present ability to consult with his
lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by G.
Michael Harvey
Date: 2018.02.09
Date: February 9, 2018 13:30:26 -05'00'
___________________________________
G. MICHAEL HARVEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE