Competency to be extradited

Ron Evans from the Death Penalty Defense Unit won in State v. Patton, No. 98,470 (Kan. Feb. 1, 2008), reversing a Shawnee County district court order authorizing Mr. Patton's extradition to Florida to face capital murder charges. The main issue is whether there is any requirement that the subject of an extradition request be competent to help defend against that extradition. The KSC adopted a "middle ground" approach that requires some competency finding, but lower than that required for trial:

The rationale of the courts adopting the middle of the road approach is persuasive. This narrower approach more closely comports with the summary nature of extradition proceedings, while assuring that the defendant has a sufficient understanding of the issues in order to assist counsel and present defenses. The issues of whether the extradition documents on their face are in order and whether the alleged fugitive has been charged with a crime in the demanding state can be tested by counsel without assistance from the alleged fugitive and, therefore, both the right to counsel and the right to present defenses are not eroded if an alleged fugitive lacks the ability to comprehend the legal documents at issue.

While we lack the expertise to determine whether mental health professionals can carve the fine lines between the standards, from a legal standpoint the only two defenses on which the alleged fugitive's assistance is necessary to test the validity of the extradition are the questions of whether he or she (1) is the person named in the request for extradition and (2) is a fugitive. We, therefore, conclude the statutory right of counsel and the right to present those limited defenses applicable to an extradition proceeding will have been made available if the alleged fugitive has the present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding of those two issues.

So the case goes back for findings with those standards.