Re: Wilson v US

[Andrew Huff <landrewhuff@pol.net>]

But my version involves a piston instead of a pistol.  And mentions the names of the lawyers...
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Haytham" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>
To: "L. Andrew Huff" <landrewhuff@pol.net>
Cc: "Puckett Neal" <neal@puckettfaraj.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 8:39:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Wilson v US


Thank you. I found the same case today as well. 


Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone 

On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:18 PM, "L. Andrew Huff" < landrewhuff@pol.net > wrote: 









US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, argued Sept. 26 1967, decided Jan. 18, 1968 



Defendant who had amnesia so that he could not recollect alleged crimes, was convicted on five counts of assault with a piston and robbery. 



âtest of competency must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his counsel with reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him. 



âThis court holds that amnesia per se in a case where recollection was present during the time of the alleged offenses and where defendant has the ability to construct a knowledge of what happened from other sources and where he has the present ability to follow the course of the proceedings against him and discuss them rationally with Neal and Haytham does not constitute incompetency per se, and that a loss of memory should bar prosecution only when its presence would in fact be crucial to the construction and presentation of a defense and hence essential to the fairness and accuracy of the proceedings.â 






My comments: 

1. Certainly not remembering that you committed a crime does NOT mean that you didnât do it and that you should not be held responsible. 



2. Your client: if he is the ONLY person who could provide you two details about what happened and the circumstances at the time, then his defense is hampered. Suppose, for a moment, that your client really does not remember what happened at the time of the event. He might not be able to tell you a fact like, âThe person I shot had just run from behind a concrete fence and was holding a weapon. I heard shots nearby and I thought that my life was in danger. He was short and appeared to have a staggering gait.â 



3. In this case it seems to me that you would have to rely on an impartial audio/video of what happened, where the individual was verbalizing what he was seeing, hearing, and thinking. Such videos usually donât exist. Otherwise youâre left with a one sided story and can only respond with reconstruction of the behavior and character of the accused before the alleged crime. 



Andy