The test for competency in an extradition procedure only requires that the defendant be able to assist in establishing his identity and whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime.
In so holding, the Georgia Supreme Court stated it was adopting a middle course between states that require a fugitive to be sufficiently competent to understand the proceedings and those jurisdictions (apparently limited to Kentucky) where competency is irrelevant.
Roger Oliver had been charged with sexual assault, aggravated sexual battery and unlawful restraint in Illinois, but fled to Georgia while out on bond after his indictment. Pursuant to a warrant issued by the Illinois governor, Oliver was arrested and held.
Oliver then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, that he was not mentally competent to assist counsel in the proceedings.
The Court noted that extradition is a summary remedy and that in such a proceeding competency is only relevant as to the issue of identity and whether the individual for whom extradition is sought is a fugitive (his whereabouts when the crime was committed).
WHAT OLIVER MEANS
In order to be competent to be extradited, a defendant need only to be able to establish who he is and where he was at the time of the crime.
The determination of competency then hinges on whether or not the individual is able to assist counsel in determining his identity and whereabouts when the crime was committed.
Although there was evidence of current mental disability and an old psychiatric evaluation indicated that Oliver's mental state had been deteriorating, the Court found nothing sufficiently contemporary or specific enough for a finding on competency.
