*4 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. violation of EDMONDSON, and Before CLARK (b)(l)(B)(iii), and 18 U.S.C. § HILL, Circuit Senior Judges, Circuit 25, 1987, filed a defendant On November Judge. Expert Testi- Rely on of Intent “Notice Judge: HILL, Circuit Senior Mental Condition” mony of Defendant’s (b) of Federal Rule to subsection pursuant INTRODUCTION I. 12.2. Ms. Cameron Procedure of Criminal time, not, give that she did at warranting admits issues two raises Appellant (a) Rule 12.2.3 notice under subsection First, claims that the appellant discussion. any prejudice as a result of meaning she suffered precise surrounds 1. Confusion communications; thus, the claim is capacity.” with- at those "diminished the term infra attempt page to define at will out merit. We 1060-63. 1063, appellant type of evidence 25, 1987, 3.Appellant’s motion read November at sought trial. to introduce follows; claim is that the third Appellant-defendant’s Cameron, Defendant, pursuant to Rule Karen denying her motion dis- erred in court trial 12.2(b) Rules of Criminal Proce- Federal government for this case miss the indictment dure, following averments: forth sets relating to this claim The facts misconduct. expert testi- intends to introduce Defendant evidentiary developed pretrial fully at were mony relating disease or to the defect contacts between hearing. involves certаin It any mental condition defendant Angol other after counsel appellant Detective one guilt. upon bearing issue appellant but formally appointed for had been lawyer. MEMORANDUM awith prior first contact to her 12.2(b) filing permits of such no- Angol Detective found that court The district filing provided for the the time tice within the defendant. contact with did not initiate pretrial later time motions or event, agreed not to government use any In any may direct. court given the defendant to statements herein filed written has failed Angol the defendant Detective government speedy trial waiver of court or demonstrate 1, 1987, capaci- the district court certain evidence of her On December “diminished granted postpone ty” trial, motion to Ms. Cameron’s would be admissable at ad- “[i]n March (Em- her trial until 1988.4 insanity.” dition to [her] defense of added.) phasis On March 3, 1987, government On December government responded appellant’s mo- reciprocal discovery for filed a demand Although argued against tion. it the ad- sought it the results of all mental missibility “diminished capacity” evi- planned examinations the defendant dence, objection made no introduce at trial. The mo- tо defendant’s written notice of her intent stated, alia, that tion inter become upon rely defense contained “apparent” that the defendant would at February 1, within her motion—near- “rely relating trial ly prior six weeks to the date set trial mental disease.” (March 10, 1988), and several months after filed a second motion on the above-described events. seeking compel appel- December maneuver, a psychological examina- lant submit an unrelated 2, 1988, tion at Medical Center Federal Pris- made March a motion for (“MCFP”) Springfield, oners Missouri. hospitalization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. *5 necessary, according essence, examination sought The was appellant 4244. a § government, 4247(d) to “establish that de- hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. to § fendant sane at the time the was eligible determine whether she would be offense,” charged in the that “the event hospitalization rather than incarcera attempts to raise an affirmative that guilty tion in the event she was found assumption the defense” “[under that] at for hospitalization trial.5 The motion entitle defendant to should (1) that Ms. had been stated Cameron medi sanity.” jury resolution of-her in cally discharged military [a] from the (2) diagnоsed schizophrenic, diag govern- granted The district court the again by in a schizophrenic nosed appointed psychi- a local ment’s motion but a psychiatrist veteran’s administration atrist, Gonzalez, Dr. Ms. Arturo to examine (3) receiving outpatient was hospital, and specifically The district court Cameron. of an from treatment undisclosed nature requested that Dr. Gonzalez determine unit of a adminis the veteran’s (1) mentally was whether the defendant hospital least during tration at some trial, (2) competent legally to stand allegedly the crimes time she committed allegedly at time committed sane she charged. charged. the offense See 18 U.S.C. 17(a). 13, report January In a dated § government a March filed On 1988, Dr. Gonzalez found Ms. Cameron prohibit the defendant motion limine competent Despite the dis- to stand trial. presenting from evidence be- so, explicit request he trict court’s that do “nothing cause there was described not, however, any Dr. did make Gonzalez hospital reports, notes the medical appellant’s findings regarding the mental (that govern- were disclosed records allegedly time she committed health that, favorably ment) even viewed most offenses. defendant, constitute a mental would 1, 1988, meaning of appellant or defect within the February filed a disease
On 17(a)”; and defendant pretrial ruling for a on whether motion U.S.C. “[t]he government quite prejudiced by cor- fail- 5. On March will not be defendant’s rectly objected hospitalization to the motion for during provided this notice the time ure file right hospi- premature since defendant’s filing pretrial motions. attaches, than incarceration if talization rather all, only has been con- defendant Phillips, therapist Dr. Mimi a clinical who had after underlying offense. Counsel for victed during period treated the defendant time hearing appellant in a before dis- admitted Indictment, recuperating covered in the 10, 1988, March that her motion trict court on major surgery. timely. was not decisions the district court’s appeal rely right her intent to filed notice ha[d] issues. both required insanity defense as upon filings by the 12.2(a).” Various its awareness disclose Relating History B. Procedural introduce evidence intended Cameron Evidence. Capacity” “Diminished impairment. mental sought a mentioned, first As admissibility of her as it had argued, ruling on judicial also February February 1st capacity” defense Ms. Cameron’s “diminished response in her motion explained Reform Appellant Defense motion, insanity de- that, presenting the defendant from aside from precluded Act of 1984 capacity” fense, planned to introduce she “diminished presenting as an affirma- capacity” “diminished at trial. —not prose- on the as an attack but tive March to trial on proceeded case enter- necessary claim that cution’s Edward time co-defendants at which to distribute tained a for a sever- Burgess moved and Suzanna conspiracy enter into cocaine or “crack” Camer- ground that ance on the pleadings or in her to do so. Nowhere capacity” “diminished insanity and/or on’s court, how- the district arguments before them. prejudice defense would na- ever, appellant describe did for severance the motion court denied evidence; or how psychological of this ture inten- Cameron’s “defendant stated legally ac- provide evidence would a de- [i.e., regard in that tions intend to she did not ceptable theory impairment] have upon based fense cocaine.6 “crack” distribute period of time.... some manifest for been *6 provided a appellant appeal, On could why such a motion no reason I see nonetheless specific but slightly more long been filed not have or should not of her the nature explanation of vague this." before capacity” evidence: “diminished both of granted court also sought to introduce evi- defense [T]he for exclusion. requests de- that would demonstrate dence defendant Cameron prohibited The court condition rendered her fendant’s mental be- upon an relying from specific intent forming the incapable of according altogether, failed cause she crimes commit the necessary to inten- of court, notice her provide in the indictment. re- insanity defense as rely on an tion quired by Rule 12.2(a). No mention was [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] of defendant's the district court made to have was entitled Cameron Defendant February motion her 1st written notice on the considered issue mental her defect insanity de- upon an rely of an intent mental possessed the of whether fense. specific intent nec- capacity to form charged in the crimes essary to commit 11, 1988, entered Cameron Ms. March On the indictment. reserving her guilty plea, а conditional 2, hospi- motion for 1988 in the March arguable referred references Appellant made two schizophrenic in diagnosis as a to her regarding testimony talization availability of prediction that and offered part of capacity.” In the latter “diminished her testimony at the lay time "[ejxpert offered that counsel contended her the March long history of defendant's trial will establish of opportunity to given the should be Ms. Cameron illness.” mental capacity” present "diminished reports explanations indi- sporadic to medical passing vague reference made These diagnosed impairment as had been cating Cameron Ms. nature were during by appellant, of a of which some course schizophrenic, and offered be proposed obviously defense, her physician toward custody proceeding a stated directed child only explanations or of- custody given of her constitute be not should Ms. Cameron to Ms. Camer- proof specifically related fers treatment. she received child until Also, above, "crack.” to distribute appellant on's text discussed (Emphasis no prejudice give Brief at add- from the Appellant’s failure to notice ed.) (a) under subdivision rather than subdivi- (b). sion
II. DISCUSSION 12.2(b) Rule reads as follows: A. Abuse Discretion Standard Expert (b) Testimony of Defendant’s 12.2(a) Applies Rule Decisions. If Mental a defendant in- Condition. expert testimony tends to introduce relat-
A to excuse a district court’s refusal ing to a mental disease or defect or any compliance with Rule 12.- other mental condition of the defendant 2(a) “for cause shown” is reviewable under bearing upon guilt, the issue of the de- See, e.g., an abuse of discretion standard. shall, fendant provided within the time Cox, States v. 1522- United filing pretrial for the motions or at (6th Cir.1987) cases), (collecting cert. may direct, later as the such time denied, 484 U.S. S.Ct. notify attorney for the (1988). L.Ed.2d 768 writing of such intention and file a copy case Under our view the facts of such notice with the clerk. The court question the district is whether may filing for cause shown allow late denying ap- court abused its discretion grant notice or additional time to the give notice pellant relief for failure parties prepare make trial or 12.2(a)altogether; question under Rule may appropriate. other order be whether, facts unique under the of this is that compli- сontends incorrectly the district court failed (b) ance with of Rule 12.2 subdivision does recognize 12.- satisfied Rule satisfy requirements distinct 2(a)’s stage requirement notice at a (a): subdivision proceedings which court should have timely. The deemed abuse discretion Advisory As the Committee’s Notes to applies 12.2(a) state, the determination standard also Rule term “defense of 12.2(a) notice under insanity” of whether as used in that subsection “has timely.7 meaning” a well understood that is dif- (sic) amorphous
ferent the more Applying B. the Abuse Discretion bearing upon “other mental condition ... *7 to Facts. Standard the guilt” language the issue of contained 12.2(b). Rule argues
Appellant
this court
Appellee’s
the
court
Brief at 15. Notice of an inten-
should find that
district
abused
(1)
rely
expert testimony regarding
gave
because
defendant
tion to
its discretion
(b)
12.2; “mental condition” would not
notice under subdivision
of Rule
defendant’s
mean,
argues,
government
necessarily
government
the
the
disclose that the
facts
an
insanity
an
the
intends to raise
in-
appellant
would raise
defendant
knew
defense;
sanity defense.8 The fact that Ms. Camer-
government
the
suffered
and
12.2(a)
setting
help explain
latitude
the
portions of
сourt retains wide
time
7. Pertinent
Rule
applies
why
period
filing pretrial
to
the abuse of discretion standard
for
motions. See Fed.R.
interpret
12(c).
the facts as we
them:
Crim.P.
(a)
Insanity.
If a defendant
Defense
agree
government
8. While we
with the
that a
upon
insanity
rely
at
intends to
the defense
upon expert psy-
rely
to
defendant could intend
offense,
alleged
the
the defendant
the time of
shall,
testimony
raising
insanity
without
the
chiatric
defense,
provided
filing
time
within the
the
page
see the discussion at
foot-
pretrial
later
the
motions or
such
time as
govern-
argument
conflicts with the
note
direct,
attorney
may
notify
the
court
the
position
Defense
that the
Re-
ment's
government
writing
of such intention
psychiatric
the
form Act of 1984 bars
use of
copy
file a
of such notice
the clerk.
conjunction with
unless admitted in
added.)
(Emphasis
purpose
“is
of Rule 12.2
If,
insanity
government
as
an
tends,
defense.
the
con-
give
government
prepare
to meet
the
time
issue,
Act
the
bars such
usually require
[insanity]
will
the
defense,
support
insanity
except
testimony."
an
then no-
expert
upon
Fed.R.Crim.P.
reliance
12.2(b)
necessarily and
advisory
tice under Rule
would
12.2
committee’s note. The
rely upon
insanity
an
defense
testi-
tended to
sought
introduce
on herself
Appellee’s Brief at
See
trial.9
defense insanity
her
mony regarding
intent
to distribute
her
lack of
February
response to defendant’s
In its
in favor of the
strong evidence
“crack”
motion,
urged the
government
the
1st
position.
government’s
motion.
In
deny
aspects
all
of the
so,
plainly acknowl-
doing
government
the
government contends
Finally,
February
mo-
1st
edged that defendant’s
prosecu-
whether
no difference
makes
an intent
provided explicit notice of
tion
prejudiced by the fail-
or was
tion was
12.2(a)
insanity defense. Rule
rely upon an
12.-
notice
Rule
under
give
ure to
intends to
a defendant
provides that “[i]f
(a)
no distinc-
2(a)
makes
subdivision
since
...
rely upon
insanity
defense of
pre-
of the
the basis
tion on
attorney for
notify the
defendant
shall
...
insanity defense.
meet an
paredness
intention
writing
of such
government
Cox,
F.2d at 1523.
with the
copy
file a
of such notice
February
her
1st
Appellant
clerk.”
sent
interpretation
our
Under
attorney
government
for the
to the
motion
not decide wheth
facts,
we need
clerk
the district
it with the
and filed
prejudice
er,
the absence
of this
the facts
court. Under
(b)
subdivision
notice under
governmеnt,
satisfies
substantive
an announcement
(a).
requirement of subdivision
satisfies
12.2(a).10
Rule
requirements
notice
12.2(b)
appellant
notice
Rule
if the
Even
25, 1987—some
remaining inquiry
November
only
submitted
trial—
12.2(a)
February
months
1st
one-half
before
is whether
three and
requirements
rely upon
insanity
satisfy the notice
her intent to
an
notice of
does
admits in
weeks
(a),
coming
nearly
as it did
five
subdivision
February
nearly
after
date set for trial and
that on
before the
its brief
1988—
begin—
ex
had secured
trial
set
five weeks before
defendant,
in her motion
of the
was within
explicit notice
amination
gave
admissibility
pretrial
time
“such later
ruling on
pretrial
motions]
[for
for a
may
its
di-
in-
the court
that she
capacity”
discretion]
[within
“diminished
elaborating
simply
that she
stated without
unambiguously signify the
defendant’s
capacity”
sought
rely upon
insanity
a "diminished
defense.
an
raise
to her
defense in addition
defense.
motion,
February
defendant stated:
1st
government's argument
reject
for a
We
insanity, the
to [her]
"In addition
defense
rely upon
of intent to
more
notice
detailed
proof to
to offer
is entitled
defendant
terms,
very
By
Rule 12.-
defense.
its
(Emphasis
element
offense."
essential
2(a)
notify
requires
distinguished
added.)
her insani-
Appellant also
attorney
government of the
for the
defendant’s
or "claim
ty
“an affirmative defense”
rely upon the defense of
"to
"intention”
*8
excuse,"
opposed
her
to
justification or
of
alleged offense.”
at the
of the
time
ar-
capacity"
which she
"diminished
12.2(a)
require
to
a
that Rule
fails
fact
not
gued
defendant]
"claim that [the
is a
description of the defendant's evidence
detailed
defen-
guilty
[the
because
the crime
any obligation
insanity
affect
the
does not
requisite mens rea."
possess the
not
did
dant]
proffer specific
may
have to
defendant
added.)
Finally, Ms. Cameron
(Emphasis
example,
a
for other reasons. For
introducing,
propriety
sought
the
establish
to
necessary
proffer might
if the
be
alia,
lay testimony
medical records and
inter
case,
government,
it did in this
seeks to
gave
sanity.
notice on No-
regarding
She
her
presentation
defense
of an
foreclose the
25, 1987,
rely upon
that she intended
vember
expert psychiatric
is insufficient evidence mental
because there
testimony.
Second,
proffer
a
on
disease
defect.
or
expert testimony
regarding
is often
the record
complains
its brief that
government
in
10. predicate
necessary
a sufficient
for
to establish
12.2(b)
adequate to
under
were
if notice
even
satisfy
regardless
appellate
of the
reversal
an
matter,
12.2(a)
notice
such
court —
as a technical
ground
prohibiting such evi-
for
district court’s
government
give
the
the
insufficient to
would be
in the text at 15-16.
See discussion
dence.
contemplated
subdi-
under
notice
more detailed
may
circumstances under which
There
be other
applies
(a).
to the
same criticism
This
vision
explicit
regard-
disclose more details
a
must
given
government
notice
the
but terse
insanity.
motion,
ing
proposed evidence of
February
wherein she
appellant’s
1st
in
observed,
omitted)
added).
(emphasis
the district
tations
As we
As we have
rect.”
determining
in
Perry
v.
has broad discretion
stated
State Farm Fire &
court
Cas.
filing pretrial
(11th
period
Co.,
Cir.1984):
for
motions.
the time
734 F.2d
12(c).
Fed.R.Crim.P.
See
Error in the admission or exclusion of
evidence is harmless if it does
affect
objection
no
made
rights
parties.
the substantial
appellant’s
Febru-
the basis
timeliness
103;
Fed.R.Evid.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. The
ary 1st notice. The district court
demonstrating that
burden of
substantial
such
was outside of
rule that
notice
rights
party
were affected rests
pretrial
of this
filing
set for
motions
time
asserting error.
v.
Talley
Liner
J.B.
&
February 1st
was
Appellant’s
motion
type.
(5th Cir.1980).
Co.,
618 F.2d
motion; thus,
“pretrial”
our read-
a
itself
time for
ing
the record indicates
McDonough
Equipment,
Power
Inc. v.
expired.11
had not
filing such motions
Greenwood,
548, 553,
464 U.S.
104 S.Ct.
(harmless
845, 848,
(1984)
or some intent: the offense.” to excuse serve which would 98-225, Cong., 2d 98th Sess. 229 S.Rep. No. used the labels dimin- courts have [T]he Cong. (1984), in 1984 U.S.Code Reprinted capacity, responsibility, diminished ished added) 3182, News, (emphasis 3411 & Ad. merely as a other nomenclature (hereinafter Report”). “Senate expert proposition that shorthand for the is ad- evidence of abnormalities was concerned about Finally, Congress question on the of whether missible psychiatric testimo- danger particular possessed in fact psycho- inherently malleable ny regarding of the which is an element mental state at trial concepts can be misused logical offense_ a court re- When legisla- This jury. mislead or confuse capacity, of diminished jects the doctrine of, independent yet anxiety tive psychiatric evidence is saying it is to, concerns. the above-described related rea issue. inadmissible оn the mens 704(b) (included in the Fed.R.Evid. See part codified at legislation as was 1124, (7th same Israel, 1143 F.2d Muench v. 715 17).19 recodified at later denied, 18 U.S.C. Cir.1983), § 104 467 U.S. cert. (1984). also, 2682, L.Ed.2d 878 S.Ct. adhere to these courts Federal should 738 F.2d Campbell Wainwright, v. congressional re- principles of three central Cir.1984). (11th 1580-81 admissibility evaluating the form when phrases federal “di- agree in trials for that the psychiatric evidence Other courts “diminished responsibility” and offenses. minished interchangeable, contend capacity” are but threshold, must ad- we At the psychiat- the use of that these labels define enveloping the use of dress the confusion negate spe- specifically to ric evidence not “di- capacity” and phrases “diminished excuse, mitigate or lessen cific intent but responsibility.” minished culpability due to the defendant's moral “inability or compulsion” or “psychiatric surrounding confusion persistent 2. The engage in normal reflection.” failure to capacity” and terms “diminished Pohlot, See, v. e.g., United States responsibility” “diminished (3rd Cir.1987). 889, 890, This second distinguishes the “dimin- group of courts that several circuits parties contend Both responsibility” capacity-diminished pre- the Act ished whether as to differed from a “rule partial legal excuse brand of evidence other cludes the use competent psychiatric evi- of evidence” insanity defense. Un- pursuant to than negate specific in- cases, is admissible to dence those the courts reading der our at 897. tent. Id. are in com- this issue have addressed Congress did not bar plete agreement that courts draws a group a third Still admissibility all “diminished re sharp distinction between (or mens rea pertaining to the defendant’s capacity.” “diminished sponsibility” and thereof) intent crimes. The lack “diminished re According group, to this exists, debate, that one to the extent showing “a that the sponsibility” refers to confusion product persistent largely a abnormality of accused suffered from precise definition surrounding the ‘substantially impaired his men mind that ” capacity” or “diminished terms “diminished v. Fris responsibility.’ United States tal use of the word responsibility,” and (N.D.Cal. bee, F.Supp. 1221 n. common with those in connection “defense” omitted). 1985) (citation These courts em expressions. law capacity,” on the “diminished ploy the term hand, aimed refer to “defenses responsi- other “diminished courts view Some also, Id. See specific intent.” negating capacity” as inter- bility” and “diminished Fazzini, Statеs a rule of ad- United denoting changeable phrases 1837, 2057, 402, 406, Stat. §§ No. 98- Pub.L. Crime Control Act
1063
trast,
Pohlot,
(cit-
Cir.1989);
F.2d
is not an affirmative
(7th
827
at 897
defense but is
specifically
goes
evidence that
to whether
cases).
ing
prosecution
has carried its
burden
February
sought
1st
Appellant
proving each essential element of the
capaci-
use the term “diminished
motion to
crime—at least when
intent is at
to refer
ty”
it is understood
Frisbee
issue.20
“attacking
prosecution’s
to evidence
question
The first
we must answer is
by attempting to cast
prima facie case
Congress
psy-
whether
all
excluded
use
prosecution’s
claim
doubt on
negate specific
chiatric evidence to
intent.
requisite
present
element was
mental
attempt
sur-
We shall
avoid confusion
offense.”
the time
rounding
capacity”
the “diminished
sever
say
it to
that the
Suffice
responsibility”
by
“diminished
labels
refer-
put
these
have been
al uses to which
labels
ring
psychiatric
to “affirmative defense
ev-
application
the correct
has often hindered
“psychiatric
negate
idence”
evidence to
very distinct ideas that are
of the two
specific intent” to communicate the basic
both,
onе,
applied
or neither of these
under
types
psy-
distinction between these two
680;
Twine,
853 F.2d
Poh
labels. See
chiatric evidence.21
895-97; Frisbee,
lot,
F.2d at
623
827
Morse,
generally,
at 1221. See
F.Supp.
Congress
prohibit
3. Did
all
intend
in Diminished
Undiminished
“psychiatric
negate
use of
evidence to
Confusion
Crim., 1,
75
L. &
7-9
Capacity,
J. Crim.
specific intent”?
(1984). Regardless of
“war
the semantic
claims that sever
labels,”
Congress and the courts
both
Congress
disagree
al circuits
over whether
recognized
the crucial distinction be prohibited the
psychiatric
use of
evidence
impair
psychological
tween evidence of
in
does
demonstrate
but
an “affirmative de
supports
ment
negates specific
govern
stead
intent. The
fense,”
evidence that ne
psychological
White,
ment
v.
cites United States
766
charged.
gates
of the offense
an element
(1st Cir.1985),
F.2d 22
in which
case
“Affirmative defense” evidence of
prohibited
such evidence
First Circuit
specifically recognized
impairment, when
pursuant
Act.
The defendant
legislature,
must be
by
and defined
pos
charged
conspiracy
was
with
White
by
“justify”
and can
raised
possession of
sess and
cocaine with intent
crim
or “excuse” conduct that is otherwise
attempted
to distribute. Ms. White
Scott,
A.
inal.
W. LaFave &
Criminal
testimo
psychiatric
“mental state”
Law,
(1972). Psychological evidence
specific in
ny to establish that she lacked
determining
the defen
that aids the trier
she
tent to distribute cocaine because
was
regard
by
of mind with
her moth
psychologically
dant’s
state
so
dominated
compelled
took at
the time the
er
to distribute
the actions she
was
committed,
help
First Circuit
by con- cocaine to
her. The
held
charged offense
tinguish
concepts
is somewhat
too facile
Psychological
is relevant
to mens
evidence
applied
slippery
with a
when the defendant is
substance of com-
rea
specific
when
to the
641;
Fazzini,
Pohlot,
871 F.2d at
concepts.
intent crime.
plex psychiatric
As stated in
679;
Twine,
v. Brawn
F.2d at
United States
psychiatric
mens
the “use of
evidence
er,
(D.C.Cir.1972); Fris
998-1002
usage
easily
opens
may
rea
slide into wider
bee,
F.Supp. at 1224.
up
jury
akin to
to theories of defense more
841(a)(1),
21 U.S.C. §
Under
justification.”
The initial in-
Lawmakers, respon- have the the defendant had a “diminished responsibility sibility” similarly to determine the lev or some asserted state ultimate mind to excuse the el consciousness and control below which would serve door, “guilty” open again, conduct will be offense and once which otherwise needlessly confusing psychiatric juries, on the other testimo- excused. Courts hand, ny. a defendant must determine whether form, unnecessary. suggested, evidence present would seem See 30.As one commentator has its 1223; Pohlot, negate "psychiatric specif- at n. as evidence to id. at 827 F.2d offered a ic intent" often focuses not on defendant’s Wainwright, Campbell F.2d 28. See v. specific intent at the time the offense was com- denied, (11th Cir.1984), cert. 475 U.S. 1580-82 1126, mitted, but on defendant's “awareness” of (1986) L.Ed.2d 195 106 S.Ct. fully was intent and whether the defendant re- rejection "psychiat (upholding Florida's flective or in control of her unconscious motiva- poten ric/specific evidence” because of intent tions: also, Pohlot, confusion). juror F.2d tial times, nearly beings At all human are con- (collecting in which n. 12 cases at 901-902 themselves, they perceive scious of and are upheld have the exclusion various courts they doing they aware of what are do it.... psychiatric of mens rea on the evidence states of split This self-reflective in consciousness confusion, unreliability, and irrele basis of vance). self-monitoring important regu- an allows behavior, provides lator of constant explained, Congress maladap- intended feedback that allows us to correct
29. As we have
through
provisions
De-
tive behaviors....
the lack of self-
[Does
various
lacking?
rea is
Act to
"eliminate all forms of
awareness mean
mens
that]
fense Reform
hand,
upon
psychiatric
lack of volition-
On the one
the defendant knows at
defenses based
inability
adequately
doing
level what he is
and intends to do
or an
to reflect
some
it;
al control
hand,
action, (2)
fully
taking
scope
limit the
on the other
he is not
conscious
before
legal
expert psychiatric
ultimate
of his actions in the usual sense.... Mens
issues,
carefully
but the usual control structures
control the use of inher-
rea is
ently
psychiatric
ju-
compromised.
evidence so that
are
malleable
Morse,
(footnotes omitted).
legally acceptable
supra
at 46-47
Pro-
ries hear
evidence of
Pohlot,
point
theory
at
fessor Morse’s
is that a lack of conscious
of lack of mens rea."
827 F.2d
added).
(emphasis
principles
does not mean a lack of intent
These
illu-
self-reflection
905-06
Pohlot,
negate
acceptable "psychiatric
rea.
and therefore does not
mens
minate the contours of
agree.
negate specific
at
We
intent."
evidenсe
lack
at
1984 U.S.
rea.” Id.
906. For all of
mens
Report, supra
Senate
reasons,
be
Cong. Ad.News 3411.
above
evidence should
&
Code
presence
jury.
evaluated outside the
of the
“psychiatric
Evidence offered
(citing
Brawner,
v.
Id.
United States
negate specific
intent” is admis
(D.C.Cir.1972)).
sible, however, when such evidence focuses
specific state of mind at
on the defendant’s
case, appellant
failed to
charged
offense. United
the time
precisely
psychiatric
identify
(7th Cir.
Staggs,
An in accord Federal offer of with ordinarily
Rule of Evidence 103 is essential excluding a decision
for relief when hospitalization motion for fiction call this "a 1. The March motion formal offer of the district court would proof regarding psychiatric dealt a matter that with evidence of insani- until Cameron was found not have to consider ty” today’s opinion. proffer as does If a were motion, pursuаnt guilty: to 18 U.S.C. needed, what was done here would be inade- 4244, sought psychiatric treatment in lieu of § imprisonment quate untimely. guilty. were found Noth- if she ing in the record shows that before trial the complied 2. Had Cameron 12.- judge read this motion which dealt with 2(a)’s requirement, notification she would be proceedings; require- post-trial nor was there a consequences unentitled to relief from the he must have or should have done so. ment that procedural showing default absent addition, hospital- defendant’s motion for prejudice. cause for this failure and of actual proved stated some facts to be ization —for Winn, (9th See United States v. discharged example, that Cameron had been Cir.1978). showing prejudice A of actual would military schizophrenia from the —-and require something demonstrating in the record Last, prove the evidence that would these facts. a factual basis for a viable defense. We hospitalization, the motion for which was filed concluded, however, that Cameron com- hearing govern- days several before the adequately plied evidence, with the rule and that she was on its ment's motion to exclude notified the and the trial court of way questions face in no linked to Therefore, pertinent her intent to assert an defense. trial. it is a to Cameron’s