923 F.3d 806
10th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Christopher Martinez (27) responded to an undercover Craigslist ad posted by a DCI agent posing as a father offering sex with a 12‑year‑old; messages on Kik led to an arranged motel meeting and Martinez’s arrest with a phone and a condom.
- Martinez was charged and convicted by jury of attempted enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
- Pretrial, Martinez (through counsel) sought CJA funding for a forensic psychologist, asserting long‑standing diagnoses (bipolar disorder, ADD, schizophrenia, depression) but provided only general assertions and no specific showing how psychiatric evidence would negate elements of the offense. The district court denied the motion without prejudice.
- The government moved in limine to exclude evidence of mental illness and to prevent character‑for‑truthfulness evidence; the district court granted exclusion of mental‑health evidence (absent a clear link to negating specific intent) and limited character evidence.
- At trial Martinez testified and offered witnesses to his law‑abiding character; he sought to introduce mental‑health evidence as background and to present character‑for‑truthfulness testimony after cross‑examination. Both were excluded; Martinez was convicted.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) denial of CJA expert funds was not an abuse of discretion given the inadequate, non‑specific showing; (2) exclusion of mental‑health evidence was within the court’s discretion under relevance and Rule 403 concerns; and (3) exclusion of character‑for‑truthfulness evidence was proper because the prosecution’s cross‑examination challenged Martinez’s veracity on the specific issue of intent, not his general truthfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Martinez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of CJA funding for forensic psychologist | Funding unnecessary absent specific showing; court properly inquired. | Psychiatric evidence was necessary to show lack of specific intent (he intended to catch predators) and to explain his behavior; therefore expert was necessary. | Affirmed: defendant failed to make specific showing linking mental illness to negation of elements; denial not abuse of discretion. |
| 2. Exclusion of mental‑health evidence at trial | Mental‑health evidence irrelevant absent expert showing it negates specific intent; admission risks confusion/prejudice. | Evidence was background and would explain allegedly irrational behavior consistent with his claimed intent to expose predators. | Affirmed: proffered evidence lacked a chain to an element or defense; Rule 403 concerns supported exclusion. |
| 3. Exclusion of character‑for‑truthfulness testimony after cross | Cross aimed to test defendant’s account of intent in the case, not attack general truthfulness; Rule 608 correctly applied. | Character evidence for truthfulness was needed to rehabilitate credibility after alleged attack on his honesty on cross. | Affirmed: cross‑examination challenged veracity on the specific issue of intent (not general character), so 608(a) did not permit rehabilitation. |
| 4. Preservation / Plain‑error argument for expert funding on appeal | District court provided opportunity to renew; lack of specificity forfeited the issue. | Raises due‑process/ineffective assistance type concerns on appeal asserting need for expert. | Affirmed waiver: issue was not properly presented below and defendant did not seek plain‑error review; court declined to reach new arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373 (10th Cir.) (CJA funding burden on defendant)
- Liles v. Saffle, 945 F.2d 333 (10th Cir.) (general allegations insufficient to require psychiatric expert)
- United States v. Solon, 596 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for CJA funding denials)
- United States v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (low bar for relevance under Rule 401)
- United States v. Cameron, 907 F.2d 1051 (11th Cir.) (risks of admitting psychiatric evidence)
- United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687 (9th Cir.) (Rule 608: distinction between attacks on specific testimony and general character)
- Renda v. King, 347 F.3d 550 (3d Cir.) (direct attacks on veracity do not permit rehabilitation under Rule 608)
- United States v. Trujillo, 136 F.3d 1388 (10th Cir.) (review standard for evidentiary rulings)