SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Criminal Division

IN RE:
MISDEMEANOR-CHARGED
DEFENDANTS IN COMPETENCY
EVALUATION OR RESTORATION

Case No (Pending) _______________

Hon. Juliet McKenna, Presiding Judge

OMNIBUS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF
MISDEMEANOR-CHARGED DEFENDANTS IN COMPETENCY PROCEEDINGS IN
LIGHT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND SUSPENSION OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS
On behalf of all misdemeanor-charged defendants currently involved in competency
evaluation or restoration proceedings before the Superior Court, the Public Defender Service
respectfully moves the Court for such defendants’ immediate release from custody, for the
designation of a single judge to consider all of these requests, which raise similar issues, and for
the creation of an expedited system for government responses and court rulings.
These similarly situated defendants are charged only with misdemeanors, largely are
detained as a result of failures to appear or the accrual of multiple misdemeanor cases, and
nominally are undergoing a range of competency proceedings that currently serve no significant
purpose because their trials have been suspended essentially indefinitely, and at a minimum for a
significant number of months. In light of the unrelenting coronavirus outbreak currently bearing
down on each of the densely packed District of Columbia institutions where they are detained—
the D.C. Jail, Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF), and St. Elizabeths Hospital—their
continued detention serves little purpose related to the administration of justice but meanwhile
severely threatens each individuals’ health and that of the wider public.

 Time is of the essence given the unprecedented nature of this virus and its rapid spread. It
therefore would be impractical and undesirable to require each defendant to file an individual
motion for release in each case, with a separate calendar judge addressing each matter on a
separate timeline. Every presumption and inference should be taken in favor of the release of
each of these defendants. PDS therefore requests that the Court immediately release each
individual under personal recognizance or with appropriate conditions unless the government,
within 48 hours, presents compelling, concrete, case-specific reasons otherwise. Should any
individual in this group be mentally ill and imminently dangerous, the District of Columbia has
the ability to utilize the emergency provisions of the Ervin Act, D.C. Code § 21-521 et seq., to
seek emergency commitment; there is no justification for detention for the purpose of
competency evaluation, treatment or restoration, when individuals are facing misdemeanor
charges and criminal proceedings have been suspended in Superior Court.
A. Overview of Cases and Argument for Release.
All defendants addressed in this motion have only misdemeanor cases currently before
the Superior Court yet are detained and undergoing competency proceedings. 1 The charges they
face are largely rooted in conduct that is not dangerous. Many are held under D.C. Code § 23-

1

In preparation for this motion, attorneys at the Public Defender Service reviewed
Superior Court docket entries for all individuals who are pending “mental observation” hearings
in misdemeanor cases. Counsel then removed any individual who had felony charges pending as
well, and then contacted CJA counsel via email to inquire whether they wanted their client(s)
included in this omnibus motion. Counsel is appending to this motion a list of cases that were
identified, as well as an indication whether CJA counsel agreed to inclusion, asked that their
client not be included, or have not yet responded (Appendix A). It is possible that additional
cases exist that fall within the relevant category, particularly if the continued hearings were
labeled “status hearings” as opposed to “mental observation hearings” by the courtroom clerks.
Counsel would request that the Court obtain information from St. Elizabeths Hospital, as well as
the D.C. Jail and the Correctional Treatment Facility, to ascertain whether all similarly situated
individuals are included in Appendix A.

2

 1329(a) for violating a condition of release—typically by being arrested for another minor
misdemeanor or by failing to appear for a noticed court hearing. Many were arrested in the first
instance for alleged behavior consistent with mental illness yet were charged criminally instead
of having their cases handled civilly. Since their arrests, their mental condition has manifested in
potential incompetency for trial. But the Chief Judge has suspended all criminal trials until at
least May 15, 2020. 2 Due to the still-escalating and ever-changing nature of this crisis, there is
every reason to believe that this date will be extended. 3 These defendants’ trials, for all practical
purposes, have been suspended indefinitely. The proceedings initiated to assess competency or
attempt to restore it consequently serve little purpose. Detention or inpatient confinement under
these circumstances cannot be justified.
Competency proceedings, by statute, are exceedingly time-limited. See, e.g., D.C. Code
§ 24-531.03(c)(2) (preliminary competency screening must be returned within 3 days for
detained defendant); id. § 24-531.03(f)(1) (commitment length for inpatient competency
examination “shall not exceed 30 days,” with limited extensions for “good cause shown”); id.
§ 23-531.05(b) (competence restoration period must not exceed 180 days in misdemeanor cases).
For the group of individuals targeted by this motion, some may have reached statutory deadlines;
others will do so in short order.

2

Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Order, last amended March 19, 2020,
https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Order-Attachment-PDFs/Order-3-19-20.pdf.
3

In the neighboring jurisdiction of Virginia, for example, a stay-at-home order currently
expires on June 10, 2020. See Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Governor, Executive Order
No. 55, https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-55Temporary-Stay-at-Home-Order-Due-to-Novel-Coronavirus-(COVID-19).pdf. And some
scientists have estimated that the United States will need to be under significant social distancing
measures for as long as a year. Brian Resnick, Scientists warn we may need to live with social
distancing for a year or more, Vox (March 17, 2020), https://www.vox.com/science-andhealth/2020/3/17/21181694/coronavirus-covid-19-lockdowns-end-how-long-months-years.

3

 Even more critical than the statutory time frames, however, is the fact that detention for
the purpose of competency evaluation, treatment, or restoration simply cannot be justified in a
misdemeanor case where criminal proceedings have been suspended and trials are not in sight.
Because “[i]n our society, liberty is the norm,” pretrial detention is “a carefully limited
exception” that must be justified by a “sufficiently compelling” regulatory purpose. United
States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). Competency is a factual determination of fitness for
a pending criminal proceeding 4; it has nothing whatsoever to do with a potential of future danger
that might justify a longer commitment. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 733 (1972) (Those
committed for competency “can be held only for a ‘reasonable period of time’ necessary to
determine” competency.). Competency is time-sensitive and changing, 5 and for these defendants,
it is simply no longer relevant to assess competence or attempt to restore it now, given that their
trials are suspended at least for several months. A deprivation of liberty under the circumstances
present here—essentially an undetermined commitment driven toward a trial date that is no
longer pending and a misdemeanor criminal proceeding that is entirely suspended—in and of
itself would be problematic. The problem is multiplied by the fact that detention not only
infringes on the individual’s liberty, but exposes that individual to a virus that could have painful
or deadly consequences.

4

See Blakeney v. United States, 77 A.3d 328, 341 (D.C. 2013) (Competency—a
determination that is “primarily factual in nature”—requires “sufficient present ability to consult
with [a] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . [and to have] a rational as
well as factual understanding of the proceedings[.].” (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted))
5

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 181 (1975) (noting that “a trial court must always be
alert” throughout trial proceedings “to circumstances suggesting a change [in competency].”).

4

 To the extent any of these defendants initially came into detention for nonviolent
conditions-violations (or even for allegedly more serious, though still misdemeanor, behavior)
their individual circumstances are extremely unlikely to outweigh the severe threat to their health
and others’ posed by their continued detention—as an ever-growing number of courts around
the country have held in releasing even otherwise-healthy inmates and even those charged with
serious felonies in response to the outbreak. 6 For example, in United States v. Melvin McLean,

6

See, e.g., United States v. Meekins, Case No. 1:18-cr-222-APM, Dkt. No. 75 (D.D.C.
Mar. 31, 2020) (post-plea, pre-sentence release order releasing defendant with three pending
assault charges due to extraordinary danger COVID-19 poses to folks in detention); United
States v. Davis, No. 1:20-cr-9-ELH, Dkt. No. 21 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2020) (releasing defendant
due to the “urgent priority” of decarcerating, to protect both the defendant and the community,
and to preserve Sixth Amendment rights in this perilous time); United States v. Muniz, Case No.
4:09-cr-199, Dkt. No. 578 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020) (releasing defendant serving 188-month
sentence for drug conspiracy in light of vulnerability to COVID-19: “[I]ndividuals housed within
our prison systems nonetheless remain particularly vulnerable to infection.”); Fraihat v. Wolf,
No. 20-CV-590 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020) (noting risk of asymptomatic spread and unsafe
conditions in immigration detention mean “[t]he balance of equities tip sharply in [Fraihat’s]
favor” and thus ordering release); United States v. Bolston, Case No. 1:18-cr-382-MLB, Dkt. No.
20 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2020) (releasing defendant in part because “the danger inherent in his
continued incarceration at the R.A. Deyton Detention Facility . . . during the COVID-19
outbreak justif[y] his immediate release from custody”); United States v. Hector, Case No. 2:18cr-3-002, Dkt. No. 748 (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2020) (granting release pending sentencing after
Fourth Circuit remanded detention decision requiring court to specifically consider extraordinary
danger posed by COVID-19 to folks in prison); United States v. Kennedy, No. 5:18-cr-20315,
Dkt. No. 77 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020) (post-plea presentence release of defendant whose
pretrial release was revoked because “the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an independent
compelling reason” for temporary release and “is necessary for Defendant to prepare his presentence defense”); United States v. Mclean, No. 19-cr-380, Dkt. No. (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2020)
(“As counsel for the Defendant candidly concedes, the facts and evidence that the Court
previously weighed in concluding that Defendant posed a danger to the community have not
changed – with one exception. That one exception – COVID-19 – however, not only rebuts the
statutory presumption of dangerousness, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), but tilts the balance in favor of
release.”); United States v.Michaels, 8:16-cr-76-JVS, Minute Order, dkt. 1061 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
26, 2020) (“Michaels has demonstrated that the Covid-19 virus and its effects in California
constitute ‘another compelling reason’” justifying release); United States v. Jaffee, No. 19-cr-88
(D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2020) (releasing defendant with criminal history in gun and drug case, citing
“palpable” risk of spread in jail and “real” risk of “overburdening the jail’s healthcare
resources”; “the Court is . . . convinced that incarcerating the defendant while the current
COVID-19 crisis continues to expand poses a greater risk to community safety than posed by
5

 Crim. No. 19-380, Slip Op. (D.D.C. March 28, 2020), the defendant was released from pretrial
detention despite facing several felony drug trafficking and firearms charges. The court ruled that
while pretrial detention factors on danger to the community indicated by the nature of the offense
and weight of the evidence had not changed, “COVID-19 tips the scales in Defendant’s favor” of
finding a lack of “danger to the community,” id., Slip Op. at 1.
Nothing in the cases of the defendants targeted by this motion even approaches the
potential risk to the community typically argued by the government in drug trafficking and
firearm possession cases, yet even in those cases, courts are releasing defendants. 7 As noted
above, should the government believe that some aspect of a defendant’s mental condition poses a
danger significant enough to warrant continued commitment—somehow outweighing the danger
posed by their remaining detained in close quarters in the middle of a mass contagion—the
government maintains resort to the Ervin Act in an individual case.

Defendant’s release to home confinement”); United States v. Harris, No. 19-cr-356 (D.D.C. Mar.
26, 2020) (“The Court is convinced that incarcerating Defendant while the current COVID-19
crisis continues to expand poses a far greater risk to community safety than the risk posed by
Defendant’s release to home confinement on . . . strict conditions”). United States v. Barkman,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45628 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2020) (suspending intermittent confinement
because “[t]here is a pandemic that poses a direct risk if Mr. Barkman . . . is admitted to the
inmate population of the Wahoe County Detention Facility”); Basank v. Decker, No. 20-cv-2518,
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (“[t]he nature of detention facilities makes exposure and spread of the
[coronavirus] particularly harmful” so granting TRO and releasing high-risk plaintiffs).
7

One federal judge has even released an extradition detainee facing a life sentence in his
home country, given the detainee’s unique risks related to COVID-19. In re Extradition of
Alejandro Toledo Manrique, 2020 WL 1307109 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2020) (ordering release on
bond for individual facing life sentence in Peru despite government assertions that facility has
preparedness plan in place and no cases have been confirmed).

6

 B. COVID-19’s Unprecedented Threat to Detained Individuals and the Public.
By now, the Court is intimately familiar with COVID-19’s swiftly escalating toll. 8 It is
hospitalizing or killing the young and old by the thousands locally, nationally, and globally, and
getting worse every day. 9 Nowhere is the threat this outbreak poses to clustered individuals so
stark as in correctional institutions, as grimly illustrated by the exploding cases in Rikers Island
in New York and the Cook County Jail in Chicago. 10
The D.C. Jail, CTF, and St. Elizabeths similarly are highly occupied, often unsanitary
institutions where the social-distancing necessary to mitigate an outbreak of COVID-19 is next

8

COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome.
In its least serious form, COVID-19 can cause illness including fever, cough, and shortness of
breath. However, for individuals who become more seriously ill, a common complication is
bilateral interstitial pneumonia, which causes partial or total collapse of the lung alveoli, making
it difficult or impossible for patients to breathe. Thousands of patients have required hospitalgrade respirators, which are currently in short supply, and many individuals have died even after
being placed on respirators. One person in six becomes seriously ill from COVID-19, and the
virus causes excruciating pain to those who become ill. Emerging medical research also
demonstrates that, in addition to the short-term risk of death posed by COVID-19, contracting
the virus can lead to other serious long-term medical conditions, including cardiovascular
disease. See Graham Readfearn, What Happens to People’s Lungs When They Get Coronavirus,
Guardian, March 24, 2020.
9

The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the D.C., Maryland, Virginia region has
reached nearly 3500 as of March 31. Rebecca Tan, et al., Known coronavirus cases in D.C.,
Maryland, and Virginia, Wash. Post, last updated March 31, 2020,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/dc-maryland-virginia-coronaviruscases/?itid=sf_local. The number of COVID-19 cases in the United States has likewise
skyrocketed—with 163,539 cases as of March 31—eclipsing the epidemics in China, Italy, and
Iran. More than 2860 individuals in the U.S. have died. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, COVID-19 Cases in the U.S., last updated March 29, 2020,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
10

See Julia Craven, Rikers Island Has 52 Confirmed COVID-19 Cases, Slate (March 25,
2020), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/coronavirus-is-spreading-on-rikersisland.html; Sam Kelly, 134 inmates at Cook County Jail confirmed positive for COVID-19,
Chicago Sun-Times (March 30, 2020),
https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/3/29/21199171/cook-county-jail-coronaviruspositive-134-cases-covid-19.

7

 to impossible. Jails aptly have been described as “petri dish[es]” for growing new cases of
COVID-19. 11 In jails, “[t]he probability of transmission of potentially pathogenic organisms is
increased by crowding, delays in medical evaluation and treatment, rationed access to soap,
water, and clean laundry, [and] insufficient infection-control expertise[.]” 12 Once the disease
enters an institution, it is “virtually impossible to contain the spread of the virus.” 13
Outbreaks of COVID-19 within the DOC’s two physically connected jails (CDF and
CTF) and St. Eizabeths are far from speculative—they are imminent, with confirmed positive
cases now approaching double digits. On March 25, 2020, DOC revealed that a 20-year-old man
housed at CTF tested positive for COVID-19. That man, detained within the DOC since July
2019, was in a double-occupancy cell as recently as six days prior to March 25. 14 The high
likelihood that other individuals were exposed, including residents, guards, staff, and attorneys,
has since become reality. 15 On March 27, DOC announced that a 44-year-old man held at CTF

11

Dr. Ross Quinn, Letters to the Editor: A prison doctor’s stark warning on coronavirus,
jails, and prisons, L.A. Times, March 20, 2020, available at
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-20/prison-doctors-stark-warning-oncoronavirus-and-incarceration (a physician with 30 years of experience working in correctional
facilities reports that prisons are densely packed “petri dishes for contagious respiratory illness”).
12

United States v. Stephens, No. 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 19, 2020) (quoting Joseph A. Bick, Infection Control in Jails and Prisons, 45 Clinical
Infectious Diseases 1047, 1047 (Oct. 2007), https://doi.org/10.1086/521910).
13

March 20, 2020 Letter to Montana Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Judges, available at
https://courts.mt.gov/Portals/189/virus/Ltr%20to%20COLJ%20Judges%20re%20COVID19%20032020.pdf?ver=2020-03-20-115517-333.
14

See DC DOC Statement of 3-25-20 (stating that he was in a single occupancy cell only
starting five days prior to March 25)
15

A child held at New Beginnings also has tested positive. The Federal Bureau of Prisons
on March 28 further reported its first death from COVID-19, a 47-year-old man in Louisiana.
Rich Schapiro, Inmate dies after contracting coronavirus at Louisiana federal prison, NBC
News (March 29, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inmate-dies-coronaviruslouisiana-federal-prison-n1171571. The BOP now has announced a 14-day lockdown of all
inmates across the country.

8

 had since also tested positive for COVID-19. Just one day later, DOC announced positive tests
for two more men at CTF, ages 37 and 38. The next two days brought announcements of two
additional positive tests at CTF, for a 37-year-old man and a 25-year-old man, bringing the
number of confirmed infections to six within as many days. 16
Counsel has identified approximately five individuals in the group upon whose behalf
this motion is filed who are currently housed at CTF. Appendix A. St. Elizabeths, where
approximately twenty of these individuals currently reside, id., also now has confirmed that five
employees have contracted COVID-19, as has a patient on Unit 1D. Unit 1D is a pretrial forensic
unit dedicated to competency restoration. 17
Compounding the threat within these facilities is the evident failure of District
government leaders to effectively meet this mounting crisis. Grievances and press releases
submitted by the DOC correction workers’ labor union within the past week have alleged
disturbing conditions within the jail and operational failures and misinformation by DOC. These
include the failure to screen incoming inmates for COVID-19 symptoms, the lack of social
distancing, the lack of proper quarantine measures, and the lack of protective gear including
masks, gowns, and disinfectants for corrections officers who leave and enter the facility each
day. 18 Under these allegations and those of a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the

16

Khalida Volou, Another inmate tests positive for coronavirus at DC Department of
Corrections, WUSA-9 (March 31, 2020),
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/6th-inmate-tests-positive-forcoronavirus-at-dc-department-of-corrections/65-e5a5f71c-b8fc-40ad-9632-4b74f179f820
17

Justin Wm. Moyer, Coronavirus cases reported at D.C.’s St. Elizabeths Hospital,
homeless shelters, Wash. Post (April 1, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/coronavirus-cases-reported-at-dcs-st-elizabeths-hospitalhomeless-shelters/2020/04/01/05532c98-7423-11ea-ae50-7148009252e3_story.html
18

Appendix B at 3−4. See also id. at 6−8 (press release from union alleging ineffective
quarantine and virus-tracing investigations by DOC since the first positive test for COVID-19).

9

 Public Defender Service, the DOC is severely undercounting the number of infected people
through a lack of testing and allowing cellmates of quarantined and positive individuals to still
reside in general population.
According to Dr. Mark Stern, an expert on correctional health care systems and a board
certified internist specializing in correctional health care, “[d]ownsizing jail populations . . .
allow[s] those who remain incarcerated to better maintain social distancing and avoid other risks
associated with forced communal living” and improves their access to healthcare. Appendix C at
3 ¶10. Dr. Stern explains that “when [inmates] develop severe complications they will be
transported to community hospitals—thereby using scarce community resources (ER beds,
general hospital beds, ICU beds),” so avoiding an outbreak in this population is “a critical
contribution to public health overall.” Id.
Courts thus have a “critical role . . . [to] play [that] is particularly important during
[public health] emergencies,” Daniel D. Stier, et al., The Courts, Public Health, and Legal
Preparedness, 97 Am. J. Pub. Health S69 (2007). 19 This role includes protecting public health
and safety as well as individual liberty. All of these concerns converge in favor of releasing the
class of defendants included in this motion. Their continued detention serves no purpose in light
of the unprecedented crisis unfolding in and out of the institutions where they are confined, and
in light of the suspension of trials that would not be timely held even were they to be determined
competent or restored to competency within the foreseeable future.

19

See Appendix D (report on other court systems’ response to the coronavirus outbreak,
releasing significant number of incarcerated individuals)
10

 C. Need for Group Action and Requested Relief.
As demonstrated above, the spread of the COVID-19 virus is occurring at exponential
rates. It is this reality that has prompted undersigned counsel to seek relief from this Court for a
category of individuals via omnibus motion. Individual CJA counsel are operating under lessthan-ideal circumstances at this point in time, to say the least. Most are presumably working
from home; stay-at-home orders issued by local governments can prevent access to offices and
files. Schools are closed; attorneys are saddled with child care responsibilities that intrude on
their ability to work. And people or family members may be sick. Under these circumstances, the
filing of individual motions simply cannot efficiently secure the necessary remedies sufficiently
promptly. The liberty interests at stake for this group of misdemeanor defendants and the need to
protect public health by releasing non-dangerous individuals from unnecessarily crowded
correctional institutions and hospitals mandate mechanisms and procedures that will facilitate
prompt action.
For this reason counsel is also requesting that this Court designate a judge to handle the
release requests for the class of individuals identified in this omnibus motion, as well as a tight
time frame for government filings and court review. The current system has produced delay that
is not tolerable given the present crisis. As an example, in four cases involving the same
individual defendant, Superior Court Case Numbers 2019 CMD 238, 5414, 5415, and 15250,
counsel filed an emergency motion on March 22, 2020, requesting a Jackson 20 finding
(recommended by the evaluator on March 19, 2020) and immediate release. The United States
Attorney responded on March 25, 2020, not opposing a Jackson finding, but opposing release
(for 30 days) to enable the Office of the Attorney General to consider whether to seek civil

20

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).
11

 commitment. See D.C. Code § 24-531.06(c)(4) (“If the court finds the defendant is incompetent
pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(ii) of this subsection, the court shall either order the release of the
defendant or, where appropriate, enter an order for treatment pursuant to § 24-531.05(a) for up to
30 days pending the filing of a petition for civil commitment pursuant to subchapter IV of
Chapter 5 of Title 21 or subchapter IV of Chapter 13 of Title 7.”). No Superior Court judge has
ruled on the emergency motion as of this filing. Counsel requests that this Court consolidate
responsibility for this class of individuals in one judge or calendar, so that these cases receive
prompt attention and action.
Furthermore, the time for government responses and court rulings must be expedited.
For this group of individuals, this Court simply cannot abide the notion that the government
needs the statutory maximum time frames that are set forth by the legislature for normal
circumstances. See United States v. McLean, Crim. Act. No. 19-390, slip op. at 1 (D.D.C. March
28, 2020) (“COVID-19 . . . provides a basis to conclude that the case falls out of the
congressional paradigm” for legislative presumption of dangerousness) (internal quotations
omitted). Requests for 30-day windows for the District of Columbia government to decide
whether to seek civil commitment of individuals must be summarily denied. See D.C. Code § 24531.06(c)(4) (providing that the Court has discretion to “either order the [immediate] release of
the defendant or, where appropriate, enter an order for treatment pursuant to § 24-531.05(a) for
up to 30 days” (emphasis added)).
Under the Ervin Act, the government can resort to emergency hospitalization petitions for
any individual who is mentally ill and poses a risk of imminent harm to self or others. St.
Elizabeths Hospital, where most of these individuals are currently confined, is abundantly
qualified to identify imminently dangerous individuals from within this group, should they exist.

12

 Individuals involved in this omnibus pleading, by contrast, should be immediately released from
confinement, as their current confinement arises from their criminal case generally, and the need
for competency evaluation or restoration specifically. That specific need has evaporated with the
suspension of criminal proceedings.
WHEREFORE, in light of the exigent circumstances of these “extraordinary times,” 21 it
is respectfully requested that the Court order the prompt release of misdemeanor-charged
defendants in competency proceedings who are currently detained, and institute the procedures
requested herein.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Avis Buchanan
Avis Buchanan, Bar No. 365 208
Director, Public Defender Service
abuchanan@pdsdc.org
Jonathan Anderson, Bar No. 475 306
Chief, Special Litigation Division
janderson@pdsdc.org
Samia Fam, Bar No. 394 445
Chief, Appellate Division
sfam@pdsdc.org
Jaclyn Frankfurt, Bar No. 415 252
Deputy Chief, Appellate Division
jfrankfurt@pdsdc.org
David Knight, Bar No. 991 666
Chief, Trial Division
dknight@pdsdc.org
Adam G. Thompson, Bar No. 1013140
Special Litigation Division
agthompson@pdsdc.org
21

Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) (ordering release of man detained in California jail).
13

 14

Public Defender Service
633 Indiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion and appendices were served via
email on Timothy Shea, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, 555 Fourth Street,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20530, and Karl Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia,
on this 1st day of April, 2020. The Motion and Appendices will also be served electronically
via the court’s electronic filing system when the case is docketed.

/s/ Avis Buchanan
Avis Buchanan

15