Allen Stanford too drugged for trial-doctors

Allen Stanford

HOUSTON, (Reuters) – Allen Stanford is not competent to  prepare for his criminal trial because he suffers from depression  and is addicted to a powerful anti-anxiety drug that has left him  mentally foggy, psychiatrists told a U.S. judge today.
“In my opinion … he’s unable to work effectively with his  attorney to develop a defense against the charges,” Victor  Scarano, a psychiatrist testifying for the defense, told a hearing  before U.S. District Judge David Hittner.
In previous court documents, Stanford’s attorneys have argued  that he was not mentally fit to prepare for a criminal trial  because of the medications he has been prescribed since being put  in prison in June 2009.
The hearing in federal court in Houston is being held to  determine whether Stanford is competent and whether his scheduled  Jan. 24 trial date should be postponed.
Stanford, 60, should be released so he can safely get off the  drugs and assist in his defense, the lawyers have said in court  papers.

Allen Stanford
Allen Stanford

Stanford, who attended the hearing dressed in a green prison  jumpsuit, did not speak.
Stanford has pleaded not guilty to a 21-count indictment  charging him with leading a $7 billion Ponzi scheme run out of  Stanford International Bank Ltd on the island of Antigua.
The Texas financier is on a very high dosage of clonazepam, an  anti-anxiety drug brand-named Klonopin. He also takes mirtazapine,  an anti-depressant brand-named Remeron. Stanford suffered brain  trauma after a jailhouse fight in September 2009, Scarano told  Judge Hittner.
A doctor hired by government prosecutors agreed with Scarano’s  assessment that Stanford was not able to help with his defense.  Steven Rosenblatt, also a psychiatrist, said Stanford suffered  delirium resulting from clonazepam.
“I would question the reasonableness of that dose in this  case,” Rosenblatt told the hearing, adding that getting Stanford  off the medication “should help a lot.”
Stanford’s attorney’s are seeking a 2-year delay of the trial.  Prosecutors argued a shorter delay was more reasonable.
The case is U.S. v. Stanford, U.S. District Court, Southern  District of Texas, No. 09-cr-00342.