United States v. David Telles, Jr.
6f4th1086
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Telles (38) met T.B. (14) online, traveled to the UK, and sexually assaulted her on two separate nights; he was arrested and indicted on three federal counts (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), 2423(c)).
- Pretrial, Telles had repeated conflicts with counsel, sought new counsel or self-representation, and retained Dr. Denise Kellaher who diagnosed high‑functioning ASD and opined this affected competency and mens rea.
- The court ordered a government psychiatric exam (Dr. Daniel Martell); Telles was uncooperative and performed poorly on malingering measures, and later exhibited episodes of apparent catatonia that experts deemed likely malingering.
- The district court denied multiple competency‑hearing requests, excluded Dr. Kellaher’s testimony under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(d) and FRE 702/704 based on Telles’s noncooperation and the expert report’s deficiencies, and denied Telles’s Faretta request as a delay tactic.
- Trial proceeded (court found Telles voluntarily absent during catatonia), the jury convicted on all counts, and the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) (pattern-of-activity enhancement) and other enhancements; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of competency hearing | No substantial evidence of incompetence; record shows active participation and malingering | Dr. Kellaher’s ASD diagnosis and counsel’s concerns raised genuine doubt about competence | Affirmed — no substantial evidence to create a reasonable doubt of incompetence; conduct showed deliberate disruption/malingering |
| Exclusion of defense psychiatrist under Rule 12.2(d) | Government entitled to answer defense expert; Telles failed to submit to ordered exam so exclusion proper | Exclusion violated Telles’s rights to present a mental‑condition defense and expert testimony | Affirmed — district court acted within discretion; Telles’s noncooperation justified exclusion under Rule 12.2(d) |
| Denial of Faretta self‑representation request | Request was untimely and made to delay trial given prior serial counsel substitution attempts and requested continuance | Telles sought to waive counsel and proceed pro se | Affirmed — request found to be a tactic to delay; denial proper |
| Proceeding in absentia / handling catatonia episodes | Absences were voluntary malingering; Rule 43 allows proceeding when defendant voluntarily absents | Telles’s catatonia raised competence and required delay | Affirmed — court reasonably found malingering and properly proceeded; audio feed/recording used as accommodation |
| Admissibility of government's grooming expert (FRE 702/403) | Expert testimony probative to explain behavior and grooming; not improper propensity evidence | Testimony was not scientifically probative of statutory elements and unfairly prejudicial | Affirmed — Halamek controls; expert properly explained context/grooming and was admissible |
| Application of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) enhancement | Two separate sexual acts on separate nights constitute a pattern (two occasions) | Conduct was a single occasion of abuse, not a pattern | Affirmed — two separate occasions established the required pattern |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2021) (upheld admission of expert testimony about grooming and offender behavior)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (framework for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant's right to represent himself)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (standard for competency to stand trial)
- Brugnara v. United States, 856 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing malingering and competency standards)
- Garza v. United States, 751 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2014) (high bar for showing incompetence; need connection between disorder and inability to assist defense)