U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART III— PRISONS AND PRISONERS › Chapter CHAPTER 313— OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT

18 U.S.C. § 4241

Determination of mental competency to stand trial to undergo postrelease proceedings 11 So in original. Probably should be “stand trial or to undergo postrelease proceedings”.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Motion To Determine Competency of Defendant.—At any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of the sentence, the defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.(b)Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and Report.—Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).(c)Hearing.—The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d).(d)Determination and Disposition.—If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment in a suitable facility—(1) for such a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the foreseeable future he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward; and(2) for an additional reasonable period of time until—(A) his mental condition is so improved that trial may proceed, if the court finds that there is a substantial probability that within such additional period of time he will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward; or(B) the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law;whichever is earlier.If, at the end of the time period specified, it is determined that the defendant’s mental condition has not so improved as to permit the proceedings to go forward, the defendant is subject to the provisions of sections 4246 and 4248.(e)Discharge.—When the director of the facility in which a defendant is hospitalized pursuant to subsection (d) determines that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, he shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to the defendant’s counsel and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall hold a hearing, conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to determine the competency of the defendant. If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has recovered to such an extent that he is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, the court shall order his immediate discharge from the facility in which he is hospitalized and shall set the date for trial or other proceedings. Upon discharge, the defendant is subject to the provisions of chapters 207 and 227.(f)Admissibility of Finding of Competency.—A finding by the court that the defendant is mentally competent to stand trial shall not prejudice the defendant in raising the issue of his insanity as a defense to the offense charged, and shall not be admissible as evidence in a trial for the offense charged.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 855; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 403(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2057; Pub. L. 109–248, title III, § 302(2), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 619.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 876 (May 13, 1930, ch. 254, § 6, 46 Stat. 271).

Changes were made in phraseology and surplusage omitted.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–248, § 302(2)(A), inserted “to undergo postrelease proceedings” after “trial” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–248, § 302(2)(B), inserted “or at any time after the commencement of probation or supervised release and prior to the completion of the sentence,” after “sentencing of the defendant,”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–248, § 302(2)(C), substituted “proceedings to go forward” for “trial to proceed” wherever appearing and “sections 4246 and 4248” for “section 4246” in concluding provisions.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–248, § 302(2)(D), inserted “or other proceedings” after “trial” and substituted “chapters 207 and 227” for “chapter 207”.

1984—Pub. L. 98–473 amended section generally, substituting “Determination of mental competency to stand trial” for “Examination and transfer to hospital” in section catchline, and substituting provisions relating to motion, report, hearing, etc., for determination of competency of defendant, for provisions relating to boards of examiners for examination of inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions and transfer of such inmates to hospitals.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 1984 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 401, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2057, provided that: “This chapter [chapter IV (§§ 401–406) of title II of Pub. L. 98–473, enacting section 20 of this title and amending this chapter, section 3006A of this title, and rule 12.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence set out in the Appendix to this title] may be sited [cited] as the ‘Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,358 cases (220 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 63× “See 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d). The appeal from the September *736 15 involuntary medication and extension of commitment orders is before us as No.”
United States v. Magassouba, 544 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 20× “§§ 841 (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A), 846; and (2) ordered his hospitalization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d)(2)(A) for psychiatric treatment, including the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication.”
United States v. Stephen Graham-Wright, 715 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 22× “After the police arrested Graham-Wright, his lawyer filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 for a government-paid “in-custody examination regarding competency and cognitive function.”
United States v. Brennan, 928 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2019). · cites it 17× “) committing him to the custody of the Attorney General for psychiatric treatment and evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d). Brennan argues that the district court's commitment order violates his due process rights because a forensic psychologist, who conducted a…”
United States v. Sean Wayda, 966 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2020). · cites it 17× “This § 4248 certification follows a determination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 that Appellee is incompetent to stand trial and is unlikely to be restored 2 to competency through additional hospitalization.”
United States v. Arenburg, 605 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 13× “” 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (a). Because trial judges are in the best position to make these determinations, we afford district courts wide latitude to reach conclusions as to both “reasonable cause” and a criminal defendant’s overall competence to stand trial.”
United States v. Javier Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “The First FMC Report also recommended that Izquierdo be returned to But-ner for a period of 120 days, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d), to determine if his competency could be restored.”
United States v. Sonia Quintero, 995 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 14× “QUINTERO SUMMARY* Criminal Law The panel affirmed the district court’s order committing Sonia Quintero, who was found incompetent to stand trial on federal drug charges, to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d) for inpatient assessment of her…”
United States v. Rosaire Dubrule, 822 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “2d 824 (1960); see also 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (a); United States v. Washington, 271 Fed.”
United States v. Kyulle Jay Strong, 489 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “The district court found Defendant-Appellant Kyulle Jay Strong incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and restoration pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d). Strong appeals the district court’s commitment order, arguing that §…”
United States v. Edgar Searcy, 880 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 8× “is that [Searcy] be in the custody of [the Bureau of Prisons], be civilly committed as mentally incompetent to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (d), or have had all criminal charges against him dismissed solely for reasons relating to his mental condition.”
Lewis v. State, 889 So. 2d 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “, and 18 U.S.C. § 4241 , makes it clear that the determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial is separate and distinct from the determination of his sanity at the time of the offense.”
Show all 1,358 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) — 4 cases
Sergentakis v. Channell, 272 F. Supp. 3d 221 (D. Mass. 2017).
United States v. Sanchez-Hurtado, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (S.D. Cal. 1999).
United States v. Randy Stewart (8th Cir. 2019).
In re: Marcelo Meirelles De Carvalho (S.D. Fla. 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.