United States v. Binion

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.


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
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

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.


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.


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.


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
title=Mental Competency Evaluations: Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys
publisher=American Judges Association

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
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.
year= 1989
title= ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards
publisher=American Bar Association
location=Washington DC
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
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


External links

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

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужна курсовая?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • United States v. Booker — SCOTUSCase Litigants = United States v. Booker ArgueDate = October 4 ArgueYear = 2004 DecideDate = January 12 DecideYear = 2005 FullName = United States v. Freddie J. Booker; United States v. Ducan Fanfan USVol=543 USPage=220 Citation =125 S. Ct …   Wikipedia

  • United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines — The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious (Class A) misdemeanors[1] in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not… …   Wikipedia

  • Dusky v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States Decided April 18, 1960 …   Wikipedia

  • Large denominations of United States currency — The base currency of the United States is the U.S. dollar, and is printed on bills in denominations of $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100. At one time, however, it also included five larger denominations. High denomination currency was prevalent …   Wikipedia

  • Pallacanestro Reggiana — Pallacanestro Regiana Nicknames Arena Palabigi Reggio Emilia, Italy Club colours Red and White President Stefano Landi Head coach Franco Marceletti Assistant coach(es …   Wikipedia

  • Virtus Pallacanestro Bologna — Leagues Lega Serie A Founded 1871 History 1871–present Arena …   Wikipedia

  • Competency evaluation (law) — In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process. Competency was originally established by the Supreme Court of the… …   Wikipedia

  • Olimpia Basket Pistoia — Olimpia Basket Pistoia, also known as Maltinti Pistoia after one of its historic sponsors, was an Italian professional basketball team from the town of Pistoia. It played in Serie A, the Italian top level professional league, in the 1990s. Their… …   Wikipedia

  • Libertas Livorno — is an Italian professional basketball team from the town of Livorno. It was established in 1947. In 1991 it has merged with another team from Livorno, Pallacanestro Livorno (keeping the Libertas name). In 1994 the team has gone bankrupt and is… …   Wikipedia

  • Federal Sentencing Guidelines — The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy for convicted defendants in the United States federal court system. The Guidelines are the product of the United States Sentencing Commission and are part of an… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”