Adam Gordy v. Anthony Hedgpeth

MEMORANDUM

1. The state courts did not unreasonably apply Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), or rest their decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts, in denying Adam Gordy’s requests for a second competency hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). The state trial court denied those requests, despite behavior by Gordy that might other wise have justified a second hearing, primarily because the court believed that Gordy was feigning his behavior for the purpose of delaying the trial. In the months preceding Gordy’s first competency hearing, three of five examining psychiatrists found that he was malingering and was competent to stand trial. In determining whether or not there was reason to doubt Gordy’s competence, the state trial court properly referenced those medical evaluations and made numerous observations on the record documenting that Gor-dy’s actions appeared strategic rather than authentic, including his act of cutting his hands in open court. See Drope, 420 U.S. at 180 , 95 S.Ct. 896 . Both the state trial and appellate courts reasonably grounded their decision on the disjunction between Gordy’s sedated demeanor and verbal…