D.Mass.: 72 hour psych ward hold didn’t show defendant couldn’t consent

The mere fact defendant was in a psychiatric ward on a 72 hour hold did not show that he couldn’t consent. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court credits the FBI agent that defendant knew what he was talking about and wasn’t psychotic at the time. United States v. Greer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54009 (D. Mass. March 26, 2013):

Defendant argues that his consent was not voluntary based on evidence of Emergency Department records from Regions Hospital showing that he was admitted to a psychiatric ward for a seventy-two-hour hold. Those records show that Defendant was admitted to the psychiatric ward due to the hospital staff’s concerns that Defendant suffered from possible psychosis, depression, developmental disability, and mild mental retardation, among other mental health issues, and Defendant was finally diagnosed as having a likely adjustment disorder. (Def.’s Hr’g Ex. 1 at 2, 4.) However, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Defendant had the requisite mental capacity to consent. For example, Special Agent Walden, who has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in industrial psychology, and extensive experience working with people suffering from mental illness and mental deficiencies, testified at the hearing that Defendant had a good vocabulary and was able to convey his thoughts well to the FBI agents. Defendant calmly answered the agents’ questions in a rational manner and discussed his motives for and involvement in the bank robbery. Special Agent Walden also testified that Defendant did not exhibit any level of diminished capacity during his investigation and he never had any concerns that Defendant had a developmental disability. (Tr. 21:15—22:12.) The record also reflects that although Defendant did attend “some learning disabled classes,” he received a “regular diploma from the school without special circumstances.” (Gov’t’s Hr’g Ex. 1 at 1—2.) Although Defendant was in a psychiatric ward when he was interviewed, there was no evidence that he was not acting rationally or was incapable of appreciating the consequences of his actions.