The Supreme Court of Bronx County held that a person who is not mentally competent to stand trial is, by the same token, not mentally competent to waive her right to counsel or to proceed to trial pro Se.

The defendant was accused of setting fire to a neighbor's apartment. While at the Fire Marshal's office, she was advised of her Miranda rights. She told the fire marshal that she understood the warnings. She was then questioned about the fire. She said she had been at the apartment where the fire had taken place and that after a fight with the residents, she had dropped a cigarette in a cardboard box outside their door. She was asked to put this in writing and she complied.

Later, she was interviewed by the assistant district attorney, who asked her if she understood that she had a right to an attorney to which she replied, "whatever you say." When asked if she understood what she had been told, she replied, "yes."

About a month later, the defendant was examined by a psychiatrist who found that she was schizophrenic with a substance abuse problem. She was found incompetent to stand trial. Soon after, she was reexamined. This time she was found competent to stand trial. She later moved to suppress the statements she had given the fire marshal.

The court cited the requirement that a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary. With virtually no case law to guide it, the court examined the facts and found that even though she was not found incompetent to stand trial until 30 days after her arrest, the behavior elicited to find her incompetent had a significant bearing on her behavior 30 days earlier and deserved consideration. Additionally, the court gave weight to the defendant's responses to the assistant district attorney. Replying "whatever you say," it held, evidenced an individual incompetent to assist an attorney in her defense and therefore, to make a waiver that would pass constitutional muster.