United States v. Larry Mikawa
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3113
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Larry Mikawa was found not guilty by reason of insanity of false personation of a federal officer (18 U.S.C. § 912) in 2012 and committed under 18 U.S.C. § 4243; he has schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.
- FMC Rochester clinicians and three Risk Assessment Panels (RAPs) recommended unconditional or conditional release after finding little historical violence; RAPs noted likely noncompliance with meds post-release.
- The government opposed release; its treating psychiatrist (Dr. Hart) and independent evaluator (Dr. Peuschold) testified Mikawa remained dangerous due to persistent delusions, refusal to accept illness, and history of threatening/assaultive conduct.
- A proposed conditional release plan placed Mikawa in a supervised assisted living home in Anchorage with required treatment, medication, monitoring by probation, and risk of recommitment for noncompliance.
- The district court held a two-day hearing, credited the government expert, listed fourteen past acts (threats, assaults, harassment, disruptive and assaultive conduct in custody), and denied conditional discharge finding a substantial risk of bodily injury or property damage.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dangerousness finding for clear error and affirmed, finding the court reasonably rejected RAP opinions in light of the aggregate evidence and insufficient assurance of compliance with conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mikawa proved by a preponderance that conditional release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury or serious property damage | Mikawa: RAP recommendations and minimal history of violent injury show low risk; proposed supervised plan with medication, monitoring, and sanction for noncompliance is adequate | Government: Persistent delusions, lack of insight, history of threats/assaults and prior noncompliance with meds mean risk remains despite plan | Court: Affirmed denial — not clearly erroneous to credit government expert and find aggregate history and likely noncompliance create substantial risk |
| Whether the conditional release plan sufficiently mitigated the identified risk | Mikawa: Conditions (medication, testing, supervision, recommitment) control risk | Government: Conditions unlikely to ensure compliance given Mikawa’s lack of insight and history of refusing meds | Court: Plan insufficient as presented; court reasonably declined to adopt hypothetical additional safeguards |
| Whether district court erred in discounting RAP clinicians' opinions | Mikawa: RAP clinicians had extensive experience and multi-year records supporting release | Government: RAPs’ opinions understates behavioral incidents and risks; treating and independent experts disagreed | Court: No clear error — district court permissibly weighed experts and found government expert credible |
| Standard of review and burden of proof on appeal | Mikawa: Argued sufficiency of evidence for release | Government: Argued deference to district court and clear-error review | Court: Applied clear-error review to dangerousness finding; burden on Mikawa to prove release by preponderance; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bilyk, 949 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1991) (clear-error review of district court dangerousness findings under § 4243)
- United States v. Steil, 916 F.2d 485 (8th Cir. 1990) (district court discretion in release of committed psychiatric patient; government as medical custodian)
- United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2003) (overt violence not required to show dangerousness; lack of insight and noncompliance relevant)
- United States v. Williams, 299 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2002) (continued commitment proper despite minimal history of actual violence where institutional behavior shows danger)
- United States v. Jackson, 19 F.3d 1003 (5th Cir. 1994) (section 4243 does not mandate conditional release merely because close outpatient monitoring exists)
- United States v. Phelps, 283 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2002) (court may deny release if adequate conditions cannot be developed to ensure public safety)
- United States v. Clark, 893 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir. 1990) (trial judge may reject experts’ conclusions where reasoning supports different results)
- United States v. Charters, 863 F.2d 302 (4th Cir. 1988) (government’s custodial role as benign medical custodian rather than punitive custodian)