finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to hold a hearing to determine whether a witness with a history of mental illness was competent to testify
How later courts described this case
- finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to hold a hearing to determine whether a witness with a history of mental illness was competent to testify
- concluding that a witness with “bouts of serious mental illness” was not necessarily “incapable of telling the truth”
- trial court not compelled to instruct jury to disregard testimony of men- tally ill key witness notwithstanding witness’s inconsis- tency and confession that he had lied; witness’s testimony did not reflect “abnormal degree of internal inconsis- tency” and “it is common for witnesses to change their stories on the stand”
- inconsistent testimony of mentally ill witness does not disqualify him
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
COFFEY, Circuit Judge, with whom FLAUM, Circuit Judge, joins.
With all due respect, I feel compelled to dissent to this court’s decision to deny rehearing. In addition to the views expressed in my dissent, I believe that this court’s reasoning in the recent United States v. Johns, 728 F.2d 953 (7th Cir.1984) decision warrants a rehearing in the instant case. In Johns , our court remanded to the district court for a determination of the defendant’s competency at the time of that court’s proceedings due to its original failure to order a psychiatric examination. In light of Johns , where the question of sanity was much less pronounced, I believe the somewhat inconsistent result in the present case necessitates a rehearing. For the record, I think it also should be noted that within two months of Gutman’s conviction, Odom was recommitted to a mental health facility by court order.