United States v. Buchanan
Criminal No. 2024-0256
D.D.C.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Kevin Brent Buchanan is charged with three counts of making threatening interstate communications under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), with enhancements for targeting an organization based on protected characteristics.
- The government filed a motion in limine to preclude Buchanan from presenting evidence or argument supporting a diminished capacity defense.
- Buchanan designated Dr. Glen E. Johnson, a psychiatrist, as an expert to testify about Buchanan's mental health (PTSD and panic disorder), arguing these conditions allegedly affected his intent when making the charged calls.
- Dr. Johnson’s proffered testimony includes opinions on Buchanan’s lack of specific intent and risk to others, but the expert disclosure was incomplete and vague.
- The government challenged both the admissibility and scope of Dr. Johnson’s testimony—arguing that it improperly reached the ultimate issue of Buchanan’s mental state and that Dr. Johnson lacked forensic qualifications.
- The court ruled on the motion, requiring more specificity from the defense, restricting certain testimony, and setting a pretrial evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Diminished Capacity | Testimony should be barred as it improperly addresses Buchanan’s intent and is not sufficiently specific. | Testimony is relevant to Buchanan’s mens rea, showing lack of conscious wrongdoing due to psychiatric conditions. | GRANTED IN PART. Expert may not opine on ultimate issue of intent; may testify about diagnoses and symptoms relevant to mens rea. |
| Sufficiency/Disclosure of Expert Report | Disclosure is vague and insufficient under Rule 16(b)(1)(C). | Dr. Johnson’s experience and clinical relationship support relevance; more detail to be provided if necessary. | GRANTED. Buchanan must submit a revised, detailed expert disclosure clarifying opinions, bases, and expert/lay topics. |
| Forensic Qualifications of Expert | Dr. Johnson lacks forensic psychiatry qualifications, affecting reliability and admissibility. | General-practice psychiatric expertise is sufficient for relevant clinical diagnoses and symptom testimony. | DENIED (at this stage). Dr. Johnson may be qualified as a general-practice psychiatrist, pending evidentiary hearing on qualifications and scope. |
| Admissibility of Lay Witness Testimony | Family member testimony is inadmissible hearsay and lacks rational basis. | Lay testimony is based on direct observations and is relevant to Buchanan’s consciousness of wrongdoing. | DENIED. Lay witnesses may testify to observed symptoms relevant to mens rea if opinions are rationally based on perception; each must first provide supporting observations. |
| Federal Rule of Evidence 403 Concerns | Testimony’s probative value is outweighed by potential for prejudice/confusion and risk of jury nullification. | Testimony is critical for Buchanan’s defense and goes to an element of the offense (mens rea). | HELD IN ABEYANCE. Final admissibility under Rule 403 to be determined after evidentiary hearing or at trial based on actual presentations and risk assessments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (clarified mens rea requirement for threatening communications statute)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expert reliability assessed by reference to relevant field’s practices)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (criminal liability requires consciousness of wrongdoing)
- Diaz v. United States, 602 U.S. 526 (Rule 704(b) prohibits expert opinions about a defendant's intent as an ultimate issue)