Schizophrenia

...ba href=/schizophrenia/a/b."During Monday's interview, Muhammad seemed paranoid, the psychiatrist wrote.

He claimed that his attorneys were withholding information that was important to his defense and told her: "It was never my intention to be represented by an attorney."Lewis said the sniper told her that he is innocent and thinks "his arrest was the result of an elaborate scheme to frame him for the murders."She wrote that Muhammad told her he also believes accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo (news) was "fed information by the police and forced to make a false confession."Muhammad has refused to assist his attorneys, public defenders Paul DeWolfe and Brian D.

Shefferman, saying that he can't share his "secret defense strategy" with his attorneys because "they cannot be trusted," Lewis wrote.At Wednesday's hearing, Montgomery Circuit Judge James L.

Ryan must decide on Muhammad's competency before ruling on whether to allow Muhammad to represent himself.Muhammad and Malvo are accused of murdering 10 people and wounding three during the three-week period in October, and have been tied to killings in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Washington state.Muhammad was convicted and sentenced to death in for a sniper shooting in Manassas, Va.

Malvo also was convicted in Virginia and sentenced to life in prison.Malvo is scheduled to go on trial in Montgomery County in the fall for the same six murders.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press.

All rights reserved.

This material may not be published, broadcas...

...ba href=/schizophrenia/a/b”.During Monday’s interview, Muhammad seemed paranoid, the psychiatrist wrote.He claimed that his lawyers were withholding information that was important to his defence and told her: “It was never my intention to be represented by an attorney.” FRONT Copyright Info.

...

...ba href=/schizophrenia/a/b.

In December 2003 he was charged being an accomplice to kidnapping and of committing actual bodily harm.

He was released from the IMEI on 19 October 2004.

All his requests for release were rejected mainly on the grounds that he might abscond, given the seriousness of the charges against him.

The risk of collusion was also referred to.

The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand.

He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).

The Court found that after the investigation was closed, the risk of collusion was no longer arguable.

As to the risk of the applicant’s absconding, the Court found that the domestic courts should have made it’s assessment in the light of the applicant’s serious psychiatric condition and should have considered his placement in a civilian institution, all the more so since, before his committal to the IMEI, he had already been detained for more than one-and-a-half years.

Instead, the courts limited themselves to reiterating that, given the seriousness of the charges against him, there was a risk that the applicant would abscond.

The Court found that this was implausible in the circumstances.

It was therefore not persuaded that the applicant’s detention, in particular after 17 October 2003, was justified.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(The judgment is available only in English.) Bendžius v....