USA v. McDougal

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________________________
United States of America
v. 3:25-mj-233-002
3:26-mc-10
(MAD/MJK)
Melissa McDougal,
_____________________________________________________________________
Adrian LaRochelle, Assistant United States Attorney
Paul J. Tuck, Esq. (CJA), for Defendant
Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge
To The Honorable Mae A. D’Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER and REPORT-RECOMMENDATION
The Court held a competency hearing on March 11, 2026.
Defendant appeared and was represented by counsel. Defendant did not
testify. The Court considered: (1) the testimony of Clinical and Forensic
Psychologist, G. Todd, Ph.D.; (2) Dr. Todd’s December 16, 2025 Forensic
Evaluation which the Court received on January 9, 2026 (Dkt. 37); and
(3) a December 10, 2014 letter from the New York State Office for
People With Developmental Disabilities. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court recommends that McDougal be found competent to
stand trial, as she has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 12

2
that she is suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering her
mentally incompetent such that she is unable to understand the nature
and consequences of the proceedings against her or to assist properly in
her defense.
I. Procedural History
At her initial appearance on August 18, 2025, McDougal made an
oral motion for a competency hearing. See (Text Minute entry from
August 18, 2025). The Court granted McDougal’s motion and ordered a
competency examination in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 4241 et seq. (Dkt.
26). A competency hearing was held on March 11, 2026. Defendant
appeared and was represented by counsel appointed by the Court. Dr.
Todd, the author of the Forensic Evaluation, appeared by Teams
videoconference with the consent of the Government and McDougal.
The Forensic Evaluation and a letter from New York State Office for
People With Developmental Disabilities dated December 10, 2014 were
received, without objection, in evidence as Government Exhibit 1 and
Defense Exhibit 1, respectively. Dr. Todd was subjected to direct
examination by the Government and cross-examination by McDougal.
The Government did not offer any other evidence. McDougal was
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 12

3
offered the opportunity to testify but declined to do so. McDougal did
not present any witnesses.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
A court must declare a criminal defendant incompetent to stand
trial if it finds “by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is
presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him
mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the
nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist
properly in his defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). The determination of
competency turns on whether the defendant has “(1) sufficient present
ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding and (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the
proceedings against him.” United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 410 (2d
Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Dusky v. United States,
362 U.S. 402, 402, (1960) (per curiam)). In assessing competency, the
district court “must weigh evidence and apply evidentiary standards,”
United States v. Brennan, 928 F.3d 210, 216 (2d Cir. 2019), and “may
rely on a number of factors, including medical opinion and the court’s
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 12

4
observations of the defendant's comportment,” Nichols, 56 F.3d at 411
(citing United States v. Hemsi, 901 F.2d 293, 295 (2d Cir. 1990)).
The question of which party bears the burden of proof with respect
to competency remains unsettled. See United States v. Marmolejos, 2019
WL 2191139, *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2019). Because this case is not
one of the rare cases in which the evidence “is in equipoise,” Nichols, 56
F.3d at 410 (internal quotation omitted), the Court does not need
resolve that question. United States v. Marmolejos, 2019 WL 2191139 at
*1 n.1.1
B. The Evidence
i. McDougal’s Demeanor
The Court observed McDougal during the hearing. McDougal sat
quietly, observing Dr. Todd on the video monitor located on the table
where she sat with her counsel. McDougal appeared attentive to the
video monitor and did not fidget.
ii. Dr. Todd’s Testimony
Dr. Todd was certified by the Court as an expert witness, without
objection, following testimony concerning her education and
1 The Government seems to have taken on at least the burden of proof by taking the
witness’s testimony on direct.
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 12

5
professional experience. Dr. Todd’s direct testimony relied on the
Forensic Evaluation, her recollection of her encounters with McDougal
and reference to her notes. Dr. Todd met with McDougal on seven
occasions, for one to two hours each time, and met with her at an
outside hospital. In addition, Dr. Todd had encounters with, and made
observations of, McDougal on the unit where McDougal was housed,
which is where Dr. Todd’s office is located.
The Court incorporates by reference the details set forth in the
Forensic Evaluation, Government #1. Specifically, the Court notes that
Dr. Todd found McDougal to be engaging and motivated to complete the
evaluation process. McDougal paid attention, was articulate,
understood the charges against her, was able to give feedback after
receiving explanations, provided appropriate unprompted responses,
and asked spontaneous questions when encountered on the unit.
Dr. Todd testified about the assessment process, which included
review of specific documents, taking McDougal’s history, review of
McDougal’s telephone calls and emails, observations of McDougal by
Dr. Todd and other facility staff, and conversations with the Assistant
United States Attorney, and McDougal’s defense attorney.
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 5 of 12

6
McDougal was administered two Performance Validity tests - DCT
and the b-Test - which are intended to sus out suspicious test-taking
efforts. The results of these tests placed McDougal in the “Suspect
Effort” range. These results are “highly suggestive of poor effort” and
that “[McDougal] likely did not put forth adequate effort and attempted
to appear more impaired than her true level of functioning.”
Government #1, p. 6.
Dr. Todd testified that these Performance Validity test results
were inconsistent with her personal interactions with McDougal, noting
that McDougal was able to navigate the facility, attend appointments
on time, use the telephone, recall her PIN for that purpose, and able to
request money from Western Union. Dr. Todd opined that McDougal
does not suffer from a mental disease or defect, has a factual
understanding of the legal system and her legal situation,
demonstrates the ability to make rational case-related decisions, and
can assist properly in her defense.
iii. Cross-Examination of Dr. Todd
Counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Todd’s conclusions focused on
the import of the findings set forth in Defendant’s #1, that as of
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 6 of 12

7
December 10, 2014, McDougal had low intelligence scores and was
diagnosed with learning and developmental disabilities, including
ADHD and Aspergers. Dr. Todd confirmed that she was not provided
with, and therefore did not review, McDougal’s historical medical or
mental health records. Nor did Dr. Todd have the reports which are
described in Defendant’s #1. Dr. Todd did, however, explain the test
results described in Defendant’s #1 which indicated low intelligence. Dr.
Todd testified that her opinion of McDougal would not be different if she
had reviewed Defendant’s Exhibit #1 before completing the Forensic
Evaluation, noting that her task was to assess McDougal as she
presented before her. Dr. Todd conceded that IQ does not usually
change over time, save a traumatic brain injury.
Dr. Todd testified that McDougal’s low IQ score documented in
Defendant’s # 1 would not undermine the Performance Validity tests.
That said, Dr. Todd could not confirm whether the normative sample
included people with developmental or intellectual disabilities. With
respect to observations of McDougal’s telephone calls, Dr. Todd testified
that it was possible for a person with developmental and intellectual
disabilities to carry on a “normal” telephone call as a matter of
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 7 of 12

8
previously established routine, and similarly, to use a PIN and follow
prompts on the telephone. Regarding the diagnosis of “other specified
personality disorder with histrionic traits” Dr. Todd testified that no
personality disorder tests were undertaken and that her diagnosis was
based on her observations of, and information provided by, McDougal.
Dr. Todd also testified that while no adaptive functioning tests were
performed, she observed that McDougal did not have problems with
activities of daily living. Finally, while the Forensic Evaluation does not
so indicate, Dr. Todd found in her notes that the role of the jury was
discussed with McDougal and McDougal responded that its role was “to
find you innocent or guilty.”
In sum, McDougal’s position is that she is impaired by severe
learning and developmental disabilities which preclude her from
understanding the legal system, her legal situation, and that she is
incapable of assisting with her defense and making rational case-
related decisions.
iv. Re-Direct Examination of Dr. Todd
On re-direct examination, Dr. Todd confirmed that her opinions
were based on the administered tests, her assessment of McDougal from
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 8 of 12

9
their scheduled sessions, and encounters on the unit. That is, the
totality of Dr. Todd’s work and interactions with her and staff informed
her opinion in this case. Dr. Todd opined that low intelligence does not
equate to incompetence. Dr. Todd explained that someone with low
intelligence may need more time to understand the legal proceedings
and legal concepts, and that simpler language and repetition may also
be needed to educate her. She opined that the diagnoses of ADHD,
anxiety and Aspergers did not equate to incompetence. Dr. Todd noted
that while it did take McDougal more time to understand some things,
she frequently understood statements without reinforcement, and
during telephone calls with family – sister, husband and father – she
was able to update them on her interactions with Dr. Todd and other
legal issues without assistance.
v. Findings
Having considered the documentary evidence, observations of
McDougal, and the testimony of Dr. Todd, the Court recommends
finding that there was not a preponderance of the evidence proving that
McDougal “is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect
rendering her mentally incompetent to the extent that she is unable to
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 9 of 12

10
understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her
or to assist properly in her defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d).
Dr. Todd observed that McDougal understood the charges against
her, correctly identified the roles and responsibilities of courtroom
participants, including the role of the judge, prosecutor, defendant,
witness, and jury. McDougal’s description of the events that led to her
arrest were consistent with the information provided in the collateral
records reviewed by Dr. Todd. McDougal demonstrated the ability to
learn factual information associated with her case and the legal system.
The Forensic Evaluation shows that McDougal was able to provide
Dr. Todd with a reasonable explanation of how she would like her case
to proceed and the strength of the case against her. See (Government
#1, p. 10). Similarly, McDougal was able to articulate to Dr. Todd the
different legal options available to her. McDougal was able to be
educated about the concept of a plea bargain, and then indicate key
concepts associated with it. Thus, as Dr. Todd opined, McDougal
demonstrated the ability to make rational case related decisions.
Dr. Todd found that “McDougal did not exhibit any significant
impairment in attention, concentration, memory or information
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 10 of 12

11
processing that would impact her ability to attend and or track events
during courtroom proceedings.” See (Government #1, p.11). Dr. Todd’s
opinion established that McDougal could assist properly in her defense.
The Court observed Dr. Todd as she testified. In addition to being
well educated and trained, she was professional and had a command of
the details of McDougal’s assessments, McDougal’s demeanor in the
facility, and during their personal encounters. Dr. Todd answered
questions on cross-examination directly and clearly. Dr. Todd’s
testimony was compelling and her opinions were not materially
challenged on cross examination.
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is
RECOMMENDED, that the District Court find that there was
not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that McDougal is
suffering from a mental disease or defect that renders her mentally
incompetent to the extent that she is unable to understand the nature
and consequences of the proceedings against her or to assist properly
in her defense; and it is further
ORDERED, that pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d
110 (2d Cir. 2006) and Local Rule 5.3, the transcript of, and the
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 11 of 12

12
documents admitted into evidence at, the March 11, 2026 hearing shall
be sealed, as the personal information contained therein outweighs the
public’s interest in having access to the same.
Dated: March 17, 2026.
_____________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-mc-00010-AJB-MJK Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 12 of 12