## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Robert Phibbs, Diane Whited, and others with multiple cocaine-related offenses.
- At trial, the government called two cooperating witnesses, Jerry Parks and Tommy McKeehan, to describe drug activity involving the defendants.
- Parks had previously been found incompetent to stand trial and had been committed to mental-health facilities.
- McKeehan’s psychiatrist submitted an affidavit stating that McKeehan suffered from confusion and hallucinations.
- Before Parks and McKeehan testified, the district court did not conduct a separate, formal competency examination or hearing focused on their mental condition.
- During the trial, the judge commented on the record that Parks and McKeehan “were not crazy witnesses” and that McKeehan appeared “sober and cogent.”
- The jury convicted the defendants.
- Whited appealed, arguing that Parks and McKeehan were incompetent witnesses and that their testimony should not have been admitted.

## Issues

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing Parks and McKeehan to testify without first conducting a preliminary competency examination, given their documented mental-health problems?

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Parks and McKeehan to testify.
- It concluded that the record did not require a separate pretestimony competency hearing and that the trial judge could assess competency through in-court observation and the ordinary testing of credibility through cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 601, witnesses are generally presumed competent to testify.
- A witness’s history of mental illness or treatment does not automatically make the witness incompetent; such conditions commonly bear on credibility and weight for the jury.
- The trial court has broad discretion to determine witness competency, including relying on its observations of the witness’s demeanor and ability to respond to questions.
- A separate competency hearing is not mandatory in every case involving mental-health concerns; it is required only when the circumstances create a serious question about the witness’s capacity to perceive, remember, communicate, or understand the duty to testify truthfully.
- Appellate review of competency determinations is deferential; reversal is warranted only for an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

United States v. Phibbs upheld the admission of testimony from two cooperating witnesses despite substantial mental-health histories, holding that the district court did not have to conduct a separate competency hearing before they testified and could instead evaluate competency through observation at trial and the adversarial process, leaving mental-condition concerns largely for the jury’s assessment of credibility.


United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053 (1993)