United States v. Thornberg
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7534
8th Cir.2012Background
- Thornberg escaped from a Duluth federal prison camp in 2003, was apprehended in 2010, and charged with escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a); he pled not guilty by reason of insanity.
- The district court ordered a psychiatric evaluation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242(a) to assess competency and mental state at escape; a Bureau of Prisons psychologist found no severe mental disease and competence to stand trial.
- Thornberg sought a second psychiatric evaluation; the district court denied; defense relied on coercion/duress theory and presented extensive mental-health testimony.
- Trial evidence included Thornberg’s testimony about his mental-health history and witnesses describing persecutory pressures; the jury convicted Thornberg and the court imposed 30 months consecutive to his prior sentence.
- On appeal Thornberg argued due process violations from the single evaluation and ineffective assistance of counsel; the court applied plain-error review and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a second psychiatric evaluation violated due process | Thornberg argues incomplete evaluation due to missing records | District court had discretion; records reviewed; second eval unnecessary | No due-process violation; district court properly denied second evaluation |
| Whether IAC claims should be addressed on direct appeal | Thornberg claims ineffective assistance against three lawyers | IAC must be raised collaterally unless exceptional record shows need | IAC claims not appropriate on direct appeal; affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether district court complied with Ake and funding/appointment decisions were proper | Ake requires funding and access to mental-health expert | Discretionary funding and evaluator selection were proper; no abuse of discretion | District court properly granted the psychiatric evaluation and denied additional evaluation under Ake standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 F.3d 68 (1985) (indigent defendant’s right to psychiatric assistance when defense at stake)
- United States v. Bertling, 370 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court's discretion in funding for expert)
- Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1987) (test for whether funding denial would cause unfair trial)
- United States v. Maret, 433 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir. 1970) (additional psychiatric examinations within district court’s discretion)
- Swann v. Taylor, 173 F.3d 425 (4th Cir. 1999) (Ake does not mandate psychiatrist over psychologist)
- United States v. Zhou, 428 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2005) (district court may rely on Bureau of Prisons’ mental-health evaluator)