Attorney general says D.C. sniper showed no mental illness

The Virginia attorney general’s office said yesterday that there is no evidence John Allen Muhammad’s lawyers had reason to think he was mentally ill when he asked to represent himself at his 2003 trial.

To the contrary, Muhammad demonstrated his competence to stand trial, “to everyone in the courtroom,“ the attorney general’s office said in its response to an appeal filed by Muhammad with the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

“The record of trial reveals that Muhammad not only represented himself lucidly and coherently for the first two days of his [trial] . . . but that he actively participated in his defense throughout,“ according to the brief.

Muhammad, 48, is set to die by injection Tuesday for the Oct. 9, 2002, capital murder of Dean Harold Meyers, 53, one of 10 murders committed by Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo in a three-week period in Virginia, Maryland and Washington.

The attorney general’s office also argued that Muhammad is not entitled to a stay of execution as requested by Muhammad.

On Tuesday, Muhammad’s lawyers requested the stay and filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. They contend Muhammad’s trial lawyers failed to perform up to constitutionally acceptable standards.

The appeal contends that when Muhammad asked to represent himself at his trial, his lawyers, aware he was mentally ill, had a duty to request a competency evaluation of Muhammad even if Muhammad objected.

Muhammad represented himself during the first two days of his trial. Peter D. Greenspun, one of the trial lawyers, yesterday referred any comment to Muhammad’s current lawyers.

Muhammad’s appeal claims a psychiatrist could have provided expert testimony that while Muhammad could appear bright at times, he was not competent to represent himself. Also, his current lawyers say an MRI scan of Muhammad’s brain showed “serious abnormalities.“

In a 31-page response filed yesterday, the attorney general strongly disagreed.

The attorney general wrote that in 2007, the Virginia Supreme Court “reasonably dismissed Muhammad’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Muhammad failed to demonstrate that [his trial lawyers] had in their possession any information showing him to be mentally ill, much less incompetent to represent himself.“

The Virginia Supreme Court found that the record showed Muhammad understood the risks of representing himself and that his trial lawyers “found him to be ‘a very bright man.‘“

The attorney general also said a psychological report on Muhammad prepared before his trial concluded that Muhammad was not mentally disabled, had no psychotic symptoms or hallucinations, and that an MRI showed he had a normal brain.

There was no finding of mental illness, incompetence or brain dysfunction, the attorney general’s office said. It was that report that Muhammad’s trial lawyers had seen prior to his trial, the attorney general said.

The appeal contends Muhammad’s “paranoid and delusional beliefs were clearly evident in, and had a devastating effect on, Muhammad’s behavior in this case.“

Among other things, his lawyers said Muhammad refused to cooperate with the state’s mental-health expert, resulting in a barring of mental-health testimony on his behalf during the sentencing phase of his trial.