Reported / Citable
Background
Brandon Keith Bob, Jr. is a criminal defendant in the Eastern District of Texas. On October 21, 2025, Bob filed a motion seeking a psychiatric or psychological examination to determine whether he suffered from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial. The court granted the motion that same day. Dr. Lacie Biber, a licensed psychologist at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Worth, Texas, was assigned to conduct the evaluation.
Dr. Biber’s psychiatric report concluded that Bob does not suffer from a mental disease or defect that would prevent him from understanding the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or from properly assisting in his defense. A competency hearing was held on May 12, 2026, at which Bob appeared with his attorney, Alejandro Macias. Neither the government nor the defense objected to Dr. Biber’s findings.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding Bob competent to stand trial. The court concluded that Bob has a rational and factual understanding of the proceeding against him and possesses sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, meeting the standard established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), and codified in 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge adopt this finding and that speedy trial time be excluded from October 21, 2025 (when the competency motion was filed) until the date the district judge signs an order adopting the recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant found competent to stand trial based on psychological evaluation and court hearing without objection from either party.
- Competency standard requires defendant to understand the nature and consequences of proceedings and to assist in his own defense.
- Unopposed psychological evaluation and lack of objections by counsel supported the competency finding.
- Competency determinations trigger strict procedural safeguards allowing parties to file objections and seek de novo review.
Why It Matters
Competency to stand trial is a foundational requirement in criminal procedure designed to ensure defendants can meaningfully participate in their own defense. This decision reflects the judicial process for determining competency through expert psychological evaluation followed by adversarial scrutiny, where either party may challenge the findings.
The matter is significant because it demonstrates how courts address mental health issues in the criminal process while protecting defendants’ constitutional rights. The Dusky standard—requiring both rational understanding of proceedings and ability to assist counsel—remains the guiding framework for competency determinations across federal courts.