United States v. Binion

"United States v. Binion" 900 S.W.2d 702 (2005) is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", ussc|543|220|2005 and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District.

Circumstances

The defendant was arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Representing himself, the defendant filed a "pro se" motion for a competence-to-stand-trial evaluation in which psychological tests were administered by a psychologist under the supervision of a psychiatrist who integrated the results and reported them to the court. Based on the test results and the discrepancy between these results and the defendant's observed behavior, the psychiatrist concluded that the defendant was most likely feigning mental illness and had no mental disorder. He further stated that the defendant's malingering was a "form of recreation rather than a design to accomplish secondary material gain".cite web
url=http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/34/1/126
title=Behavior of the Defendant in a Competency-to-Stand-Trial Evaluation Becomes an Issue in Sentencing
publisher=Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
accessdate=2007-10-10]

The defendant pleaded guilty to the offense. However, because of his reported malingering , he was also charged with obstruction of justice which added two points to the sentencing recommendations. The court stated that because of the feigned illness, the defendant was not accepting responsibility for his behavior as is normally required in a plea of guilty and therefore the normal reduction in sentence for a guilty plea was waived. The defendant was sentenced according to the guidelines recommended by the pre-sentence investigation.

Appeal

The defendant appealed his sentence on three grounds. First he claimed that by increasing his sentence by adding the charge of obstruction of justice, related to his feigning mental illness, the trial court had violated "United States v. Booker". In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment required the determination beyond a reasonable doubt, the validity of any fact that increased the sentence of a defendant in a federal criminal case over the highest level of the range as set forth by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Second, although acknowledging he feigned mental illness, the defendant stated he did so to amuse himself and without specific intent to obstruct justice, and that therefore the court erred in so charging him and enhancing his sentence accordingly. Third, he argued that because the trial court did not view the defendant as accepting responsibility for his offense even though he pleaded guilty, the court had erred in failing to reduce the defendant's sentence as part of the guilty plea.

Ruling

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District on each of the three grounds raised. The precedent of "United States v. Booker" was followed in allowing judicial discretion in applying the sentencing guidelines. Thus the conviction for obstruction of justice for feigning mental illness on his competency evaluation, adding two points to the sentencing recommendations was upheld, as was the ruling that because of the feigned illness, the defendant was not accepting responsibility for his behavior for the purposes of a guilty plea and therefore the waiving of a reduction in sentence was appropriate. The defendant's sentence, as determined by the trial judge's discretion, was upheld.

ignificance

The case is significant because of the issues it raises if a legal decision is based on the testimony of mental health professionals. First, it points to a difficult issue in competency evaluations. Although the standards for competency were set forth in "Dusky v. United States", much of the standard remains ambiguous and is not clearly defined. Only one common principle is clear in forensic evaluations, that forensic evaluators cannot reach a finding independent of the facts of the case at hand. [cite web
year=2002
url=http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr37/cr37-2/CR37-2ZapfRoesch.pdf
title=Mental Competency Evaluations: Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys
publisher=American Judges Association
accessdate=2007-10-10]

Second, many practitioners feel strongly that forensic evaluators should restrict themselves to behavioral observations and describing test results only, and avoid making statements on legal questions as transpired in this case.cite book
first=David L.
last= Shapiro
year= 1991
title= Forensic Psychological Assessment: An Integrative Approach
edition=
publisher=Simon & Schuster
location=Needham Heights, MA
pages= p.69
id= ISBN 0-205-12521-2] This case makes it all the more important that the forensic evaluator clarify to the defendant that any information obtained will not be kept confidential, since the defendant has no control over how this information will be used. [cite book
first=Albert J.
last=Datz
year= 1989
title= ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards
edition=
publisher=American Bar Association
location=Washington DC
pages=
id= ISBN 0-89707-450-5]

Third, the issue of malingering is particularly problematic as there is no ultimate test, and such diagnoses boil down to clinical decisions. An extensive review of the literature by Melton "et al" did not reveal any studies in which clinicians using various combinations of testing procedures and interviews demonstrated any "extraordinary ability" to detect malingering.cite book
first=Gary
last=Melton
year=1997
title=Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers
edition=2nd Ed.
publisher=The Guilford Press
location=New York
pages=pp. 56–57
id= ISBN 1-57230-236-4]

Footnotes

External links

* [http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr37/cr37-2/CR37-2ZapfRoesch.pdf Mental Competency Evaluations: Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys] ]