United States v. Binion
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''United States v. Binion'', 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir. 2005), is a case in which the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in case citations, 8th Cir.) is a United States federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts: * Eastern District of Arkansas * Western Dist ...
applied two recent
U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
decisions, '' United States v. Booker'' and '' United States v. Fanfan'', in upholding the sentencing decision by the trial court, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (in case citations, E.D. Mo.) is a trial level federal district court based in St. Louis, Missouri, with jurisdiction over fifty counties in the eastern half of Missouri. T ...
.


Circumstances

Dammeon Binion was arrested for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law (from the French medieval word "félonie") to describe an offense that resu ...
. Representing himself, the defendant filed a ''
pro se ''Pro se'' legal representation ( or ) comes from Latin ''pro se'', meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, ...
'' 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 A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitt ...
. He further stated that the defendant's malingering was a "form of recreation rather than a design to accomplish secondary material gain". The defendant pleaded guilty to the offense. However, because of his reported malingering, he was also charged with
obstruction of justice Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is an act that involves unduly influencing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with the justice system, especially the legal and procedural tasks of prosecutors, investigators, or other gov ...
, 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 the normal reduction in sentence for a
guilty plea In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a criminal case under common law using the adversarial system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in respons ...
was therefore 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'' (2005). In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment required the determination beyond a reasonable doubt of 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 The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious (Class A) misdemeanors in the Uni ...
. Second, although acknowledging the 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 affirmed the judgment of the district court on each of the three grounds raised. ''Booker'' was followed in allowing judicial discretion in applying the sentencing guidelines. Thus, the enhancement for
obstruction of justice Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is an act that involves unduly influencing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with the justice system, especially the legal and procedural tasks of prosecutors, investigators, or other gov ...
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 no reduction in sentence was appropriate. The defendant's sentence, as determined by the trial judge's discretion, was upheld.


Significance

The case is significant because of the issues it raises if a legal decision is based on the testimony of mental health professionals, by means of
forensic psychology Forensic psychology is the development and application of scientific knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in criminal, civil, contractual, or other judicial proceedings. Forensic psychology includes both research on various ...
. 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. 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. 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. 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.


Footnotes


External links

* {{caselaw source , case = ''United States v. Binion'', 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir. 2005) , courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3037335/united-states-v-dammeon-binion/
Mental Competency Evaluations: Guidelines for Judges and Attorneys
Mental health law in the United States United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cases United States federal obstruction of justice case law United States Sixth Amendment sentencing case law 2005 in United States case law