United States v. Bishop
5:22-cr-00079
M.D. Fla.Mar 26, 2024Background
- David Lee Bishop is charged with second-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a).
- Bishop sought to introduce testimony from three experts: a psychologist (Heather Holmes), a toxicologist (Susan Skolly-Danziger), and a former prison warden (Maureen Baird).
- The proposed expert testimony concerned Bishop's mental health, alleged drug use, and general information about federal prison life.
- Bishop did not assert an insanity defense.
- The Government moved in limine to exclude all three expert opinions, arguing they were inadmissible and/or irrelevant.
- The court reviewed submissions from both parties and ruled solely on whether the expert testimony should be excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of mental health/drug use expert | Not allowed under § 17(a) and Rule 403 | Expert testimony relevant to mental state | Excluded under § 17(a) and Rule 403 |
| Relevance of prison culture testimony | Irrelevant under Rule 702, 403 | Expert testimony helps jury understand context | Excluded under Rule 702, 403 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cameron, 907 F.2d 1051 (11th Cir. 1990) (Psychological evidence cannot negate mens rea in general intent crimes unless insanity is asserted)
- United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000) (Second-degree murder is a general intent crime)
- United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (Non-insanity psychological evidence inadmissible to negate mens rea in general intent cases)
- United States v. Pohlot, 827 F.2d 889 (3d Cir. 1987) (Psychological opinions unsupported by legally acceptable theory of lack of mens rea)