1. What is the correct standard for reviewing denied motions for competency
hearings, under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) and constitutional due process? Is reversal
required under either the unlimited review previously applied by the Ninth
Circuit, or for abuse of discretion as applied by some other circuits, when the
denied motions were supported by declarations of counsel and psychiatric reports
directly connecting the defendant's mental disorder to incompetency?

2. Where experts disagree on whether a defendant's poor performance on a
court-ordered examination is malingering or due to his autism and learning
disorders, may courts treat it as a failure to submit to the examination and
exclude his psychiatric expert from trial under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 12.2, thus implicating his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to
present a mental-disorder defense?

3. Does a court violate a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to
represent himself, asserted 41 days before trial, by finding a purpose of delay
from the defendant's stated intention to request a continuance, no matter who
represented him? What are appropriate parameters to the timeliness
requirement of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1974), and what limitations
should be placed on courts' discretion to find exceptions thereto?

4. Must courts engage in case-specific inquiries under Federal Rules of
Evidence 702 and 403 when grooming and compliant-victim expert testimony is
challenged at trial and on appeal, which cannot be "foreclosed" by another
decision's approval of distinct grooming testimony on plain-error review?

standard-for-reviewing-denied-motions-for-competency-hearings