Stanford due in court today (20th December 2011) for Competency Hearing

Accused Ponzi Schemer Lying About Having Amnesia, Say Prosecutors

Federal prosecutors say R. Allen Stanford, the financier accused of defrauding investors of $7 billion, is mentally competent to stand trial and is faking amnesia, according to court documents.

A competency hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 20th December 2011 in a Texas court.

Stanford, 61, pleaded not guilty to all charges and later claimed he developed amnesia after a fellow inmate assaulted him in 2009. His defense attorney said in separate documents that the inmate smashed Stanford's face into a pole and threw him onto the concrete floor.

But in their motion to have Stanford declared competent, U.S. attorneys said doctors at the federal prison in Butner, N.C., determined that Stanford was "not credible" when he said he was "completely amnestic to his life prior to the assault." Stanford said he could not remember past romances, vacations with his children or any details about his business operations.

Additional psychological testing, the motion says, prove he was lying and faking cognitive impairments. On some of the tests, he even scored lower than people with brain injuries and dementia.

Defense experts, according to prosecutors, blamed Stanford's poor performance on depression and fatigue. In a separate motion, Stanford's attorney, Ali Fazel, said his client "suffered a traumatic brain injury" in the assault and the medications given to him by prison medical staff, which included anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants, made his condition worse.

Stanford claims to have retrograde amnesia, the loss of memory of events that happened before an injury. Memories from a few days before to even a few years before could be lost with retrograde amnesia.

Cases in which decades of memories are lost are extremely rare, and in most cases, if memory loss is that severe, a person has likely suffered a very serious brain injury.

"In this situation, generally, brain damage is so severe that this person would not be walking, talking, conversing or reasoning," said David Loewenstein, a neuropsychologist and professor of psychiatry at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine. Loewenstein did not evaluate Stanford and was referring to amnesia in general.

While he couldn't comment on whether Stanford is lying about his memory loss, Loewenstein said skilled neuropsychologists can tell the difference between someone truly experiencing amnesia and someone who is faking it.

There are numerous tests available that psychologists and psychiatrists use that assess, among other things, a person's memory, personality and language.

"These tests are very sensitive, and you can tell with a high degree of accuracy whether someone really has amnesia," he said.

Prosecutors said in addition to psychological tests that prove Stanford is faking amnesia, they also have emails, phone calls and other evidence that they say show he does remember events prior to the prison assault.

If a judge rules Stanford is mentally fit for trial, his trial will begin Jan. 23.

Allen Stanford Mental Fitness Hearing Scheduled for Dec. 20

By Andrew Harris and Laurel Brubaker Calkins

Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier accused of leading a $7 billion investment fraud, faces a Dec. 20 hearing to determine whether he is mentally fit to stand trial next year.

Stanford, 61, returned to Houston earlier this month after a nearly nine-month stay at a U.S. Bureau of Prisons hospital at Butner, North Carolina. He was treated there for a dependency on anti-anxiety drugs given to him in prison and evaluated for the after-effects of a head injury sustained in a jailhouse assault.

Houston U.S. District Judge David Hittner today scheduled the competency hearing to determine if Stanford can assist in his defense. In a separate order, the judge said Stanford’s criminal trial would start with jury selection on Jan. 23.

The former chairman and chief executive officer of Houston- based Stanford Group Co. is accused of misleading investors about the nature and oversight of certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd.

Stanford, who maintains his innocence, has been in custody since June 2009, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Houston. The court has twice postponed previously scheduled trial dates.

Aiding Defense

Ali Fazel, one of his defense attorneys, today declined to comment on the hearing and trial dates, citing an earlier order from Hittner barring attorneys from discussing the case publicly.

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the trial date. She has previously declined to comment because of the gag order.

If he’s found unable to help his attorneys prepare his defense, Stanford could return to Butner for further treatment, said Eric Sussman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Chicago, in an interview earlier this month.

If Hittner finds Stanford can’t sufficiently recover his faculties, the judge would be required to decide whether the financier must be committed to a long-term care facility, said Sussman, now a partner in the Chicago office of New York-based Kaye Scholer LLP.

For Stanford to be permanently institutionalized, “he’d have to be deemed a danger to himself or others,” said Sussman, who isn’t involved in the case. “To the extent the judge finds he can’t be restored to competency, they may have to drop the charges,” he said.

Doctors

Houston attorney Wendell Odom, who convinced a jury that Andrea Yates was insane when she drowned her children, said if the government’s doctors have found Stanford fit for trial, it will be difficult for the defense to prove otherwise. Stanford will have an even tougher time proving he’s so permanently incapacitated that he can never be tried, Odom said.

“Mental competency is an incredibly low standard, not the same as insanity,” said Odom, a former federal prosecutor. “It basically means you are cognizant of what’s going on and you can talk to your attorney.”

The case is U.S. v. Stanford, 09cr342, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).