On St. Patrick’s Day, no less, the docket for USA v O’Dwyer shows the USA has filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Request for Pretrial Psychiatric and Psychological Examination of Ashton O’Dwyer.
So, did the USA recognize Ashton as a modern day leprechaun with a pot of gold information or did he just have the luck of the Irish? Hard to say but Ashton is smart and I bet he could connect a lot of dots for the USA. The USA’s request for a pretrial psychiatric and psychological examination, as Sop reported, was based on “a pattern of threats in his actions and communications”:
This disturbing pattern of action by O’Dwyer merits an evaluation to determine if he is competent to stand trial and is also further competent to represent himself throughout these proceedings.
However, if there is no longer reason to question Ashton’s competence, there should be an associated credibility attached to his claims and related evidence. While offensive, assholery is not a crime – and, if it were, the prisons would be packed. The USA’s motion offers few clues:
On January 29, 2010, defendant Ashton R. O’Dwyer, Jr. was arrested pursuant to a criminal complaint charging him with sending a threatening communication, in violation of with Title 18,
United States Code, Section 875. Subsequent to a detention hearing on February 1, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Louis Moore, Jr. ordered O’Dwyer detained. On February 5, 2010, a federal grand jury returned a one-count felony indictment charging O’Dwyer with violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 875, threatening interstate communications.
On February 1, 2010, a detention hearing was held before United States Magistrate Judge Louis Moore, Jr. Thereafter, on March 5, 2010, United Magistrate Judge Karen Hayes presided over
a hearing on defendant’s motion to appeal the detention order. At that hearing, Drs. Marc Zimmerman and Harmindier Mallik testified on defendant’s behalf. In view of their testimony regarding defendant’s mental health, the government moves to withdraw it’s pending motion for pretrial psychiatric and psychological examination.
Since the motion applies only the pretrial examination, unless we hear differently, it appears the Court’s Order for pretrial treatment and/or counseling remains in place.