## Facts

- Vincent Gigante was indicted in 1990 on federal charges involving extortion, mail fraud, and labor payoffs, and later indicted in 1993 for the murder of six people, additional murder-conspiracy allegations, and further extortion and labor-payoff charges.
- Before trial, Gigante moved for a competency determination under 18 U.S.C. § 4241, asserting both mental incompetence (inability to understand the proceedings or assist counsel) and physical inability to withstand trial due to serious medical problems, including heart disease.
- In 1990, the court ordered psychiatric examinations and appointed Dr. Jonas Rappeport and Dr. Daniel Schwartz to evaluate Gigante; the defense retained Dr. Abraham Halpern and Dr. Stanley Portnow to conduct additional evaluations.
- After examining Gigante and reviewing records, all four psychiatrists initially reported Gigante was not competent to stand trial under the standard associated with *Dusky v. United States* (rational and factual understanding of proceedings and ability to consult with counsel).
- Following extensive hearings, the court made factual findings that Gigante had, for roughly two decades, functioned as a major figure in the Genovese crime family and carried out high-level managerial tasks within the organization.
- The court also found that Gigante had for years taken extreme steps to feign insanity, including repeated episodes of public dishevelment (such as appearing in a bathrobe) and recurring psychiatric treatment that the court concluded were part of a long-term plan to appear mentally ill and avoid prosecution.
- After the court issued these findings, Dr. Rappeport testified to a medical degree of certainty that Gigante was malingering and probably competent, and Dr. Schwartz testified he was convinced Gigante was fit for trial.
- Dr. Halpern refused to accept the court’s findings about Gigante’s organized-crime functioning and maintained his opinion that Gigante was incompetent.
- Dr. Portnow testified that Gigante had been fit for trial in 1991 but had become incompetent by 1995 due to worsening brain disease; the court found that the conduct Portnow treated as “new” had appeared for many years.
- Separately, Gigante argued his heart condition and overall health made trial dangerously risky; the government countered with medical and other evidence indicating his condition did not prevent trial participation and did not create an unusual added risk beyond his baseline health problems.

## Issues

1. Whether Gigante was mentally competent to stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and the *Dusky* standard, given conflicting psychiatric opinions and evidence suggesting long-term feigned mental illness.
2. Whether Gigante’s physical condition—particularly his cardiac problems—rendered him physically incompetent to stand trial or required delaying the proceedings.

## Decision

- The court held Gigante was mentally competent to stand trial under § 4241.
- The court found the record supported that Gigante had long feigned severe mental illness and retained the ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel.
- The court rejected the claim that Gigante had become incompetent due to a newly developed brain disorder, finding insufficient objective support and finding the cited behaviors were longstanding.
- The court held Gigante’s physical condition, including heart disease, did not make him incompetent to proceed and did not justify halting the prosecution.
- The motion for a finding of incompetency was denied and the case was permitted to move forward.

## Legal Principles

- Competency under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 turns on whether a defendant has (1) a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and (2) sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding (the *Dusky* standard).
- The court is not bound by psychiatric labels alone and may weigh all evidence bearing on competency, including testimony about the defendant’s functioning outside the clinical setting.
- Expert opinions may be given less weight when they rest on assumptions contrary to reliable factual findings about the defendant’s real-world conduct or when they treat longstanding behavior as a recent decline without adequate support.
- A claim that a defendant is physically unable to stand trial requires a convincing showing that trial would create a substantial added medical risk, not merely that the defendant suffers from serious chronic illness.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Gigante*, the district court concluded that the more reliable evidence showed Gigante had staged severe mental illness over many years while continuing to function in an organized, managerial role in the Genovese crime family, and that he remained able to understand the proceedings and assist counsel; the court also found that his heart-related health problems did not establish physical incompetence or require postponement, so it denied the § 4241 motion and allowed the prosecution to proceed.


United States v. Gigante, 987 F. Supp. 143 (1996)