Nonfiction
United States of America v. Derick Robinson
Excerpts from Memorandum of Law Filed in Support of Appeal of Criminal Conviction
(Citations Omitted)
Summary of the Case
After a two-day trial, a jury found Derick Robinson guilty of the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The federal district court imposed a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
In his appeal, Robinson contends that he was not competent to stand trial and that therefore the jury's decision was unconstitutionally rendered. In addition, Robinson contends that in this matter the imposition of a 10-year sentence deprived Robinson of his constitutional right to due process of law. The factual predicate for a conviction of intent to distribute – namely, the amount of drugs that Robinson possessed – was not determined by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather by the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence. This violated Robinson's right to a fair trial.
Statement of Facts
Robinson is a mentally challenged man with an IQ of 56. He falls into the bottom 2 percent of the U.S. population's intellectual functioning. Questions about his competency to stand trial were raised early in the proceedings, and the magistrate judge determined that Robinson was not competent. Robinson was remanded to the care of the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.
About six months later, a second mental competency hearing was held. This time a different magistrate decided that Robinson was in fact competent.
Trial was conducted on October 28-29, 2000, and Robinson was found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The jury did not make the constitutionally require finding beyond a reasonable of the amount of cocaine Robinson held.
This case represents the sad intersection where society's need to hold adults responsible for their crimes meets the straightforward fact that some adults have the brain development of children. Robinson is one of those persons. Robinson can't read. He can't add. He can't go shopping, and his family members purchase any items he needs. His brother controls his money, giving Robinson an allowance for him to spend. Robinson doesn't work: he once briefly held a job as a stock boy at a grocery store, but he couldn't keep the job because he couldn't read the names of the items inside the boxes.
Robinson's mental deficiencies have been present since birth. The Social Security Administration has determined that Robinson qualifies for disability income based on his low functioning, including his inability to take care of himself. In short, no one alleges that Robinson has fabricated his level of mental functioning to avoid standing trial. Robinson is, has always been, and will always be a severely developmentally disabled man.
Robinson was arrested by Minneapolis police after fleeing from a traffic stop. During the impound of the vehicle, a safe was found in the car. Packages containing crack cocaine were retrieved.
Less than a month following his indictment, a psychiatric evaluation was conducted to determine Robinson's competency to stand trial. He was found incompetent. This is critical, because the parties agree that Robinson's brain malfunctions are a permanent condition and he will never recover from it. The later finding that he was competent to stand trial is illogical.
Robinson was sent to live in a federal mental health facility. As the trial date approached, a second competency hearing was held. The new psychiatric expert did not find the facts to be any different than were previously reported, but came to a different conclusion. This expert found that because Robinson got along well with his attorney, he was competent to assist in his own defense. But this is not a logical conclusion: even toddlers form a bond with people with whom they interact. The expert did not explain what Robinson's personal feelings toward his attorney had to do with his mental abilities nor with his ability to assist his attorney with his defense.
Critically, all parties agree that Robinson did not understand the charges against him. When asked what crime he was alleged to have committed, he could only state "cocaine." He did not understand that he was not being charged with mere possession, but rather with the crime of selling cocaine – a drug dealer, in other words. Without understanding what the charges were, surely Robinson could not help his attorney defend against them.
Robinson's connection with cocaine in this instance was as follows: he was asked to transport a safe from one person to another. The safe was placed in Robinson's vehicle. Robinson was curious about what the safe contained, so he pulled over and looked inside. What he found was crack cocaine. He decided to keep the drugs for himself, rather than deliver them. There was no evidence that Robinson intended to distribute the cocaine – no scales, no stash of money, no gun for protection, no notebook to record drug transactions.
A test was done to determine the presence of cocaine. The amount of product actually tested was 10 milligrams, an amount approximately equal to half of an adult fingernail. A purity test was not conducted, so there is no way of knowing how much of the product was cocaine and how much was other substances. This is critical because the judge's sentence is based on the assumption that Robinson had at least 50 grams of cocaine, the amount necessary to constitute an amount intended for selling as opposed to an amount for using.
Summary of the Argument
Robinson appeals on two grounds: (1) the trial court's ruling that he was competent to stand trial was clearly erroneous and violated his right to be free from prosecution because of his inability to assist in his own defense; (2) imposing sentence as a drug dealer without a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the amount of cocaine Robinson possessed violated the constitutional protection that crimes must always be judged beyond a reasonable doubt.