United States v. Stone
| Decision Date | 08 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:19-CR-10-TBR |
| Citation | 543 F.Supp.3d 535 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Dustin R. STONE, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Leigh Ann Dycus, U.S. Attorney Office, Paducah, KY, for Plaintiff.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Dustin R. Stone's Motion in Limine , [DN 78]. The Government has responded, [DN 79]. This matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion in Limine , [DN 78], is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART .
On February 12, 2019, Defendant was indicted on one count of attempted enticement and one count of commission of a felony against a child by a person required to register as a sex offender. [DN 1]. The Indictment charged Defendant with knowingly attempting to persuade, induce, and entice an individual, whom he believed to be a thirteen-year-old female, to engage in sexual activity. Id. On March 14, 2019, Defendant entered a plea of not guilty as to counts one and two. [DN 11]. On March 19, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of insanity defense. [DN 32]. Simultaneously, Defendant filed a notice of intent to rely upon the defense of insanity pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.2(a) and (b), thereby placing the United States on notice that the Defendant may rely on the defense of insanity at the time of the alleged offense, and may introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease or defect or some other mental condition of the Defendant bearing upon the issue of guilt. [DN 31]. In response, the United States filed a motion for a psychiatric examination, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 4242, and 4247 and Rule 12.2(c), to determine whether Defendant was insane at the time or the offense and to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. [DN 40]. The United States’ motion requested that Defendant be taken into custody to be examined by a licensed or certified psychologist. On May 27, 2020, Defendant withdrew the notice of intent to rely upon the defense of insanity and mental disease or defect, citing that Defendant informed counsel that he did not wish to rely on the defense of insanity or introduce evidence of a mental disease or defect at trial. [DN 46; DN 47]. The United States withdrew its motion for a psychiatric evaluation on June 2, 2020. [DN 51].
On June 2, 2020, the Court issued a Scheduling Order whereby the case was re-set for trial on September 14, 2020 and all pre-trial motions were to be filed by July 1, 2020. [DN 50]. Subsequently, on August 10, 2020, forty days past the deadline to file pre-trial motions, Defendant filed another notice of intent to introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease or defect. [DN 53]. This time however, Defendant conceded that insanity was not an issue but that he was otherwise not criminally responsible due to a mental disease or defect. Id. The United States renewed its motion for a psychiatric examination to determine Defendant's criminal responsibility and competency to stand trial. [DN 54]. Defendant then filed an objection to the government's motion for custodial mental examination and provided a copy of a report from Dr. Wayne Herner, a forensic psychologist. [DN 57]. The United States filed a reply continuing its request for a custodial examination, [DN 59], and filed a sealed motion to exclude Dr. Herner's proposed expert testimony, arguing that diminished capacity evidence is not admissible in defense of a general intent crime. [DN 61]. The United States also argued that the proposed testimony was irrelevant and not sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Id.
On October 9, 2020, Defendant again withdrew the notice of intent to introduce expert testimony and to rely on mental disease or defect. [DN 68]. As grounds, counsel indicated that "on October 8, 2020, the defendant notified counsel of his agreement with counsel's decision not to seek introduction of such evidence at the trial herein." Id. The Court granted Defendant's motion, [DN 69], and held that the United States’ motion for a psychiatric examination and sealed motion to exclude Dr. Herner's proposed testimony were moot. [DN 72]. The trial date was re-set for March 29, 2021 but was subsequently continued to July 26, 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [DN 77]. On April 12, 2021, Defendant filed the current motion regarding mental disease or defect, this time requesting the Court enter an in limine order, pursuant to Rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, making an pre-trial determination on the admissibility of the proffered evidence. [DN 78]. Rule 104(a) states, Fed. R. Evid. 104(a).
Using the inherent authority to manage the course of trials before it, this Court may exclude irrelevant, inadmissible, or prejudicial evidence through in limine rulings. See Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38, 41 n.4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(c) ); Louzon v. Ford Motor Co. , 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013). Unless such evidence is patently "inadmissible for any purpose," Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs. , 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997), though, the "better practice" is to defer evidentiary rulings until trial, Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 1975), so that "questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context," Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am., Inc. , 738 F. Supp. 2d 702, 706 (E.D. Ky. 2010). A ruling in limine is "no more than a preliminary, or advisory, opinion." United States v. Yannott , 42 F.3d 999, 1007 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Luce , 713 F.2d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir. 1983), aff'd, 469 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) ). Consequently, the Court may revisit its in limine rulings at any time and "for whatever reason it deems appropriate." Id. (citing Luce , 713 F.2d at 1239 ).
Two distinct arguments relating to mental disease or defect may be relevant to a criminal defense: " ‘diminished responsibility’ where a defendant's insanity absolves him of criminal responsibility, and ‘diminished capacity’ where the mental condition is such that the defendant cannot form the culpable mental state." United States v. Clark , 294 F.3d 791, 793 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Kimes , 246 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) ) (a case involving diminished responsibility). Here, Defendant proposes to present "[Dr. Herner's] expert opinion, anecdotal lay testimony, and supporting medical and psychiatric diagnostic and treatment records establishing that currently and at the time of the offense conduct alleged herein, [Mr. Stone] suffered from Tourette syndrome
, epilepsy, seizures, autism spectrum disorder, and other mental conditions." [DN 78 at 508]. The prosecution bears the burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant possessed the required mens rea to commit the general intent crimes charged. The defendant also has a right to present evidence rebutting the claims that he possessed the requisite mens rea because of his diminished capacity. United States v. Veach , 455 F.3d 628, 633–34 (6th Cir. 2006). Therefore, since a Defendant's mental status or condition might prove or disprove the existence of mens rea , a psychiatric expert such as Dr. Herner might present relevant evidence regarding Defendant's mental state, even though Defendant does not claim the defense of insanity. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402.
Defendant seeks to introduce the following evidence: (1) Mr. Stone's medical and psychiatric records that include the report of Dr. Wayne Herner, Psy.D., M.S., dated July 25, 2020, and supporting documentation and records that have been produced to the United States pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(B) and (C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; (2) witness testimony; and (3) the expert opinion of Dr. Herner based on these records, interviews with Defendant's family, and his own testing and evaluation. [DN 78 at 509]. For example, Defendant states that records from the Trover Clinic reveal that due to Tourette syndrome, Mr. Stone's ability to "assess subtle environmental cues, read social situations, and act appropriately were impaired."
Id. Defendant further stipulates that "Mr. Stone is not insane or legally incompetent." Id. Rather, "Dr. Herner's opinion will be that although Mr. Stone clearly knows the difference between right and wrong, his actions as it involves his current charges, were impacted by his neurocognitive difficulties regarding logical reasoning, capacity to think about intended actions, ability to consider possible consequences, and to exercise restraint." Id.
Defendant contends "the proffered evidence is relevant to the issue of what defendant believed at the time of the alleged offense, as well as his state of mind, motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, and likelihood of mistake." [Id. at 511]. Specifically, Defendant argues that "the proffered testimony by Dr. Herner is relevant to whether Mr. Stone "believed"—or to use the language of the Sixth Circuit Patter Instruction, "knew"—the individual with whom he was communicating was under the age of 18." [DN 83 at 536]. Moreover, Defendant Stone's "diagnosed conditions are likely to exhibit themselves as non-testimonial in-court behavior and appearance such as tics, involuntary vocal noises and sounds, and seizure activity." [DN 78 at 511]. Thus, according to Defendant, "without the proffered evidence to explain the same, the jury is likely to conclude that [Defendant Stone] is being intentionally disruptive and disrespectful of the Court." Id.
In response to Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. United States
...trial “so that ‘questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.'” United States v. Stone, 543 F.Supp.3d 535, 539 (W.D. Ky. 2021) (quoting Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Fam. Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997); Gresh v. Waste Servs. of Am., ......