United States v. Rosaire Dubrule
822 F.3d 866
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rosaire (a former physician) and Kim Dubrule indicted for running a "pill mill"; Rosaire convicted of conspiracy and multiple distribution counts; Kim convicted of conspiracy. Rosaire sentenced to 150 months; Kim to 18 months. Both appealed.
- Pre-trial: Rosaire fired initial counsel, proceeded pro se after a Faretta hearing, and exhibited erratic statements and behavior (bond-revocation incidents including DUI and conspiratorial letters). CJA standby counsel was appointed.
- Trial: Rosaire represented himself at a 10-day trial, presented medical-necessity defenses; transcripts showed coherent courtroom participation though many filings and questions were eccentric.
- Post-trial: Defense counsel sought competency evaluations. Three forensic evaluators (Drs. Dwyer, Morrow, and Marcopulos) examined Rosaire; Dwyer and Morrow opined he had delusional/personality disorders possibly impairing competency; Marcopulos (after consulting colleagues) concluded he was competent.
- The district court held hearings, credited Dr. Marcopulos and its own observations of trial demeanor, found Rosaire competent to stand trial and proceed to sentencing, and held he had waived an insanity defense by failing to timely notify. The court denied relief; this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rosaire's Argument | Government/Kim's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial and to proceed to sentencing | District court erred; Rosaire was incompetent based on post-trial expert reports and pre-trial behavior | District court correctly found competency based on trial demeanor, thorough evaluation and persuasive expert (Marcopulos) | Affirmed: no clear error in finding competency |
| Failure to sua sponte order competency hearing before/during trial | Court should have ordered hearing earlier given erratic conduct, bond incidents, odd filings, and strained counsel relationships | Court had discretion and sufficient interaction with defendant at trial to conclude no reasonable cause earlier | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in not ordering an earlier hearing |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel not requesting competency evaluation pre-/during trial | Pre-trial and standby counsel were ineffective for not seeking evaluation | Counsel performance not shown deficient or prejudicial; later evaluations and court review covered the same facts | Affirmed: Strickland not satisfied; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Waiver of insanity defense / late notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(a) | Late assertion excused by incompetence and self-representation | No good cause—court found Rosaire competent so late notice waived insanity defense | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in finding no good cause |
| Use of Dr. Marcopulos’s report despite "peer review" process challenge | Due process and Sixth Amendment violated because report involved undisclosed Forensic Panel consultation labelled as "peer reviewed" | Panel consultation is common; defense had chance to cross-examine; other experts acknowledged consultation | Affirmed: no plain error affecting substantial rights |
| Kim’s Rule 33 (newly discovered evidence) motion based on Rosaire’s post-trial incompetency report | Dwyer’s report shows Rosaire could not form conspiracy with Kim; warrants new trial | District court implicitly rejected Dwyer’s report by finding Rosaire competent; even if competent, Dwyer’s competency-focused report would not likely produce acquittal on conspiracy | Affirmed: denial of new-trial motion was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Harries v. Bell, 417 F.3d 631 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for competency factual findings)
- Grubbs v. United States, 773 F.3d 726 (6th Cir.) (review for clear error in competency findings)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency standard: consult with counsel and rational/factual understanding)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation and related admonitions)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (difficulty of retrospective competency determination)