2 Duq. Crim. L.J. 1 (2010-2011)

handle is hein.journals/duqcljou2 and id is 1 raw text is: If an Incompetent Criminal Defendant Shows that Counsel was
Ineffective and Did Not Follow Reasonable Professional Standards, the Conviction
Will be Reversed and Remanded in order to Provide Further Proceedings on his
Competency: Hummel v. Rosemeyer
FOR CRIMES, AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS - The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that
trial counsel was ineffective for not assessing Hummel's competency to stand trial and failure to
do so likely prejudiced the Defendant.
Hummel v. Rosemeyer, 564 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2009).
I. The Hummel v. Rosemeyer Decision..............................1
II. The History Behind the Hummel v. Rosemeyer Decision.................5
III. An Analysis of the Hummel v. Rosemeyer Decision...................9
In 1992, Edward V. Hummel (Hummel) was charged, by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, with the murder of his wife and found guilty of first degree murder and assault.'
On November 22, 1991, Hummel learned his wife was having an affair.2 After she admitted her
infidelities, Hummel allegedly hit her in the face and shot her in the head, which resulted in her
death.3 Hummel then went to his parents' home and told them the story.4 He returned home,
wrote a suicide letter to his children and then shot himself in the head.s Hummel was left a
paraplegic and suffered brain damage.6 After determining that Hummel would survive the
gunshot wound, he was charged with the murder of his wife.7 Hummel's counsel, F. Cortez Bell
(Bell), requested continuances in order to determine if Hummel was competent to stand trial.8
Two psychological evaluations of Hummel were conducted, one by Dr. Allan Tepper and one by
Dr. Vincent Berger.9 On August 10, 1991, Bell and the Commonwealth agreed that Hummel
was competent to stand trial.10 Bell's only contact with Hummel occurred on the day of the
.      Hummel v. Rosemeyer, 564 F.3d 290, 291 (3d Cir. 2009).
2.     Hummel, 564 F.3d at 291.
Id. The evidence was compiled with Hummel's mother's testimony. Id
4. Id. at 292.
.     Id.
6      Hummel, 564 F.3d at 292. He was in the hospital for one month and was then transferred to a
rehabilitation center where he remained for two additional months. Id The Defendant was sent to a psychiatric
ward until March 4, 1992 and then hospitalized again until March 9, 1992. Id Following these hospitalizations the
Defendant received outpatient care. Id.
. *   Id. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought charges against the Defendant, but set bail in
order for Hummel to remain at home. Hummel, 564 F.3d at 292.
.     Id.
9. Id. Dr. Tepper was unable to confirm with absolute certainty that Hummel was competent to
stand trial. Id. Dr. Berger stated Hummel was marginally competent. Id.
10     Hummel, 564 F.3d at 292. On August 7, 1992, Bell requested a competency hearing, but did not
follow through with this action. Id

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?