ÿWPC– ö…*¬_k ÷LÓâZâÓëç22¹´<„PqœUí*…1‡xIE•8 #°ÀÓÖw¾6LàP1ß‚pK3šÁw¬2øWR-k8Þ.¤T}ò:Ó™ò/å ¤Lòü„ÌÅAÖ¼°‘\ñýÞ„ÙLÆŽ«:@˜ï[CÂñ>MýîIéúÓ \PŒV'X­ŽŒ–R |c†oAüÅë‰ê¶©h%v=šð4Æ £S…úÀì}o_È­õØ’NRû‰?E•–Ç(£Ÿ­â÷Wºp‰ÊåfNFhà ~2.z-aw~$5Q“½Ì˜¬ñSYfbò¾FÕ<}‘ÙÅÝ“=a¡ô®튟i‡å ¬ÜÆèõy”RÆVæwˆ˜ß’bFC˜ð§è4®W˜mŸ2S÷š7­1kîêÆP,èwΠœ±³E©0¬~QðÈAd‘5’Q l\Œ©¦£ËÂri94Ä­s‰LJ§†Œxz?|œ7zõdû°Ö3š¡æx¼²FÙ+–f#\¦¯79€Mråû,â¥O„Ù<¯V¢à&aD*aV:¾½þð¥DbÞ:€ÃAìÃø:¨õã>µ@,Úù鈭JZ±fdæØؤД±À\ƒqË)¹g#Á¢U Nc %± 0(· 4ß ó p UNr 0DÀ  ² wÒNÖØ^ àì mîGUNL 0lše 0DKMa e( 0L------------------------------------------------------------ By˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡eH+Ôôÿÿÿÿ3|x fÝ ƒ ¯'ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô€LòXXÔMemorandum€of€Law€...Ô#†XjhXòô€L+#ÔÔ‡ô€LòXXjhÔÐ ° ÐCriminal€No.€00„000Ð tÄ ÐPage€Ú  Ú1Ú  ÚÔ#†XjhXòô€L‚#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝKlumpermemo on expert testimony Î ' .Juan Matos de Juan.0Juan Matos de Juan .    ÜŽ*+s ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ =Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€act€is€also€referred€to€as€the€Comprehensive€Crime€Control€Act€of€1984,€18€U.S.C.Ð ° Ð20€(a).€This€is€also€the€language€of€the€current€Rule€12.2€(b)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CriminalÐ œì ÐProcedure.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ – Ñ –Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€U.S.€vs€Saban€Gutierrez,€783€F.€Supp.€1538€(D.€Puerto€Rico,€1991).>c$"Small Circleð"ðà0 à dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XjhXXXÔÑ  ÑÑ ý ÑÖ€ÿÿÖÑ€Ð%Ñà@U U ìàIN€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà@< < ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOˆÐ œì ÐÌUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICAà h àà À à*Ð tÄ ÐÌÔ#†XjhXXXjh+#Ôà  àPlaintiffà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à*€à  àÔ_ÔCRIMÔ_Ô.€NO.€00„000Ð L œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà  à€€€€€vs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à*Ð $ t ÐÌDEFENDANTà0 ` àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà  àà h à*Ðü L ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àDefendantà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à*Ô‡XjhXXXjhÔÐ Ô$  ÐÌ*à  à*à ` à*à ¸ à*à  à*à h à*à À à*Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓÓÓÓÔ#†XjhXXXjhv#ÔòòÓ  Óò òMEMORANDUM€OF€LAW€CONCERNING€ANNOUNCED€€TESTIMONYÐ „Ô  ÐDIRECTED€TOWARDS€MENTAL€DISEASE,€DEFECT€ANDÐ pÀ ÐMENTAL€CONDITIONS€OF€THE€DEFENDANT€BEARINGÐ \¬ ÐUPON€THE€ISSUE€OF€GUILTóóÔ‡XjhXXXjhÔó óÐ H˜ ÐÓZÓÌÔ#†XjhXXXjhH#ÔÓ"ÓÓÓÔ‡XjhXXXjhÔTO€THE€HONORABLE€DANIEL€R.€DOMINGUEZÐ  p ÐUNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€JUDGEÐ  \ ÐFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOÔ#†XjhXXXjhÛ#ÔÔ‡XjhXXXjhÔÐ øH ÐÌÓÉÓà  àCOMES€NOW€co„defendantÔ#†XjhXXXjh¦#Ô,€represented€by€the€Federal€Public€Defender,€and€respectfullyÐ Ð  ÐSTATES€and€PRAYS:Ð ¨ø Ðà@¯¯#ìàI.€òòIntroductionóóˆÐ €Ð Ðà  à1.€€On€January€18,€2000,€the€undersigned€filed€Notice€of€itððs€intent€to€present€expertÐ X ¨ Ðtestimony€directed€towards€mental€disease,€defect€and€mental€conditions€of€the€defendant€bearingÐ 0"€  Ðupon€the€issue€of€Guilt.Ð $X" Ðà  à2.€€At€the€hearing€held€on€the€same€day€the€issue€of€this€Notice€was€discussed.Ð à%0!$ Ðà  à3.€€At€that€time€the€Court€decided€that€the€issue€of€defendantððs€mental€condition€had€to€be€oneÐ ¸'#& Ðdirectly€related€to€an€insanity€defense,€that€is,€that€the€defendant€was€inimputable€at€the€time€of€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âevents.€€The€Court€determined€that€if€the€expert€testimony€was€not€directly€directed€to€that€issue€theÐ h+¸&*ý Ðsame€then€became€pertinent€only€at€sentencing,€and€therefore€would€be€excluded€from€beingÐ Ä Ðpresented.Ð œ Ø Ðâ âà  à4.€€The€defense€understands€that€under€current€First€Circuit€case€law€it€can€present€expertÐ t ° Ðpsychiatric€testimony€directed€towards€mental€disease,€defect€and€mental€conditions€of€the€defendantÐ L ˆ Ðbearing€upon€the€issue€of€Guilt€without€presenting€an€insanity€defense,€and€presents€the€followingÐ $` ÐMemorandum€of€Law€in€support€of€itððs€position.Ð ü8  Ðà  à5.€€The€above€also€forces€the€discussion€of€other€related€issues,€including€the€examinationÐ Ô  Ðof€defendant€by€governmentððs€expert,€whether€this€examination€is€to€be€conducted€in€a€custodial€orÐ ¬è  Ðin€a€non„custodial€setting.€The€Memorandum€will€address€this€issues€as€well.Ð „À Ðà@  ìàII.€òòAdmissibility€of€Expert€TestimonyóóˆÐ \˜ Ðà  à6.€The€Insanity€Defense€Reform€Act€of€1984׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€(Ô_ÔIDRAÔ_Ô),€98€Stat.€€2057,€established,€that:Ð 4p ÐÓÓà8  àð ðIt€is€an€affirmative€defense€to€a€prosecution€under€any€Federal€Statute€that,€at€theÐ  H Ðtime€of€the€commission€of€the€acts€constitution€the€offense,€the€defendant,€as€a€resultÐ ø4 Ðof€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€ad€qualityÐ ä  Ðof€the€wrongfulness€of€his€acts.€€Mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€otherwiseÐ Ð  Ðconstitute€a€defense.ððмøÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÝÓà  à7.€At€a€first€glance€it€may€appear€the€with€this€Act€Congress€abolished€the€diminishedÐ ”!Ð Ðcapacity€defense.€That€is€not€the€case.€The€amendments€introduced€meant€that€this€defense€of€mentalÐ l#¨ Ðdisease€or€defect€rather€had€to€conform€the€limitations€therein€imposed.€Indeed,€soon€after€theÐ D%€  Ðimplementation€of€Ô_ÔIDRAÔ_Ô€the€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€First€Circuit€recognized€that€ð ðdiminishedÐ 'X" Ðcapacity€is€an€accepted€defenseðð.€òòU.S.€vs€Whiteóó,€766€F.€€2d€22€(1985),€at€24.Ð ô(0!$ Ðà  à8.€Various€Courts€belonging€to€the€First€Circuit€have€appraised€the€defense,€and€haveÐ Ä Ðdetermined€it€admissible.€In€òòU.S.€vs€Ô_ÔMarenghiÔ_Ôóó,€893€F.€Supp.€85,€89€(D.€Maine,€1995)€the€CourtÐ œ Ø Ðstated:€ð ðThis€Court€concludes,€as€did€the€trial€court€in€òòÔ_ÔSabanÔ_Ô€Gutierrezóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€[a€District€of€Puerto€RicoÐ t ° Ðcase],€that€the€Ô_ÔIDRAÔ_Ô€does€not€preclude€the€admissibility€of€psychiatric€evidence€to€directly€negateÐ L ˆ Ðmens€Ô_ÔreaÔ_Ô€....ððÐ $` Ðà  à9.€As€recently€as€òòU.S.€vs€Schneideróó,€111€F.€€3d€197,€201€(1997)€the€First€Circuit€determined:Ð ü8  ÐÓÓà8  àð ðAside€from€the€final€sentence€of€section€17€(a),€ò òin€principle€there€should€be€no€barÐ Ô  Ðto€€medical€evidence€that€a€defendant,€although€not€insane,€lacked€the€requisiteÐ Ä  Ðstate€of€mindó ó.€As€Ô_ÔLaFaveÔ_Ô€and€Scott€say:аì Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€reception€of€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€abnormal€mentalÐ ŒÈ Ðcondition,€totally€apart€from€the€defense€of€insanity,€is€certainlyÐ x´ Ðappropriate€whenever€that€evidence€is€relevant€to€the€issue€of€whetherÐ d  Ðhe€had€the€mental€state€which€is€a€necessary€element€of€the€crimeÐ PŒ Ðcharged.Ð<x` x` x ÐÌà8  à1€Ô_ÔLaFaveÔ_Ô€&€Scott,€Substantive€Criminal€Law,€sec.€€4.7€at€530.€€The€circuits€that€haveÐ P Ðconsidered€the€question€have€taken€this€view.€€ò òAfter€all,€if€the€state€of€mind€is€aÐ < Ðpotential€issue€„€as€it€is€in€most€but€not€all€criminal€cases€„€why€should€expertÐ ð, Ðmedical€testimony€be€excluded€out€of€hand?ó óÐÜÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àWe€doubt€that€the€final€sentence€of€section€17€(a)€was€intended€to€exclude€mental„Ð ´ ð Ðcondition€evidence€short€of€insanity.€€òòÔ_ÔPohlotÔ_Ôóó€canvassed€the€arguments€and€legislativeÐ  !Ü Ðhistory€at€length,€and€concluded€(1)€ò òthat€the€statute€does€not€preclude€a€defendantÐ Œ"È Ðfrom€offering€evidence€to€negate€a€requisite€state€of€mindó ó,€but€(2)€that€„€apart€fromÐ |#¸ Ðsuch€a€negation€„€it€does€preclude€any€other€new€and€different€defense€of€diminishedÐ l$¨ Ðresponsibility€to€excuse€or€mitigate€the€offence.€€òòÔ_ÔPohlotÔ_Ôóóððs€analysis€seems€to€usÐ X%”  Ðpersuasive€on€both€issues.ÐD&€!Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àSimilarly,€our€own€decisions€in€òòWhiteóó€and€òòÔ_ÔKepreosÔ_Ôóó€were€not€intended€to€establish€aÐ (X # Ðgeneral€rule€that€mental„condition€evidence€is€always€inadmissible€except€in€relationÐ )D!$ Ðto€insanity.ððÐô)0"%Ð Ð  ÐÐ à*#& ÐÓºÓà  à10.€As€defined€in€òòU.S.€vs€Whiteóó,€21,€F.€Supp.€€2d€1197€(E.D.€California,€1998),€at€1200,€ð ðaÐ Ä Ðinsanity€defense€is€differentiable€from€a€diminished€capacity€defense.€The€insanity€defense€operatesÐ œ Ø Ðto€completely€excuse€the€defendant€whether€or€not€guilt€can€be€proven€while€ò òthe€diminishedÐ t ° Ðcapacity€defense€is€directly€concerned€with€whether€the€defendant€possessed€the€ability€toÐ T  Ðattain€the€culpable€state€of€mind€which€defines€a€crimeó ó.ðð€€(Citations€deleted)Ð ,h Ðà  à11.€All€the€above€acquires€particular€pertinence€when€it€is€considered€that€Mr.€Defendant€isÐ  H  Ðcharged€with€a€ò òcrimes€of€specific€intentó ó,€namely€importation€of€narcotics€with€intent,€21€U.S.C.€952Ð ä  Ð(a),€and€possession€with€intent€to€distribute€21€Ô_ÔUSCÔ_Ô€841€(a)(1).Ð Ä  Ðà  à12.€Considering€the€arguments€rendered,€it€becomes€clear„cut€that€the€defense€raised€in€thisÐ œØ Ðcase€can€be€presented€as€an€issue€separate€and€distinct€from€insanity,€with€itððs€own€standards€of€proofÐ t° Ðand€requirements.Ð Lˆ Ðà@. . ìàIII.€€òòExamination€of€Defendant€by€Governmentððs€ExpertóóˆÐ $` Ðà  à13.€€Having€established€that€the€current€controlling€case€law€allows€defendant€to€present€aÐ ü8 Ðdefense€of€diminished€capacity,€the€next€question€is€the€Governmentððs€right€to€examine€defendant.Ð Ô Ðà  à14.€€Defendant€has€presented€his€notice,€and€will€present€the€testimony€under€Rule€12.2€(b)Ð ¬!è Ðof€the€Federal€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€(F.R.C.P.),€which€states€in€itððs€pertinent€part:Ð „#À ÐÓÓà8  àð ðIt€is€an€affirmative€defense€to€a€prosecution€under€any€Federal€Statute€that,€at€theÐ \%˜  Ðtime€of€the€commission€of€the€acts€constitution€the€offense,€the€defendant,€as€a€resultÐ H&„! Ðof€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect,€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€ad€qualityÐ 4'p" Ðof€the€wrongfulness€of€his€acts.€Mental€disease€or€defect€does€not€otherwiseÐ  (\ # Ðconstitute€a€defense.ððÐ )H!$Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ(Óà  à15.€€Courts€have€determined€that€when€the€issue€of€psychiatric€expert€testimony€arises€in€theÐ ä* #& Ðcontext€of€F.R.C.P.€12.2€(b)€the€Government€does€not€have€a€ò òrightó ó€to€submit€the€defendant€to€anÐ ¼,ø$( ÐÔ_Ôevaluation€by€itððs€expert.€€Rather,€any€possibility€of€an€examination€by€the€Government€resides€inÐ Ä Ðthe€Court€ordering€the€same€under€itððs€inherent€power€to€supervise€proceedings,€and€only€if€the€CourtÐ œ Ø Ðdeems€it€necessary.€The€examination€not€arising€as€a€matter€of€right,€the€manner€in€which€the€sameÐ t ° Ðis€to€be€conducted€varies€greatly€from€the€Governmentððs€examination€under€an€insanity€defense€perÐ L ˆ ÐRule€12.2€(a)€pf€the€F.R.C.P.Ð $` Ðà  à16.€€òòU.S.€vs€Davisóó,€93€F.€€3d€1286€(1996),€decided€by€the€Fifth€Circuit,€presented€a€similarÐ ü8  Ðprocedural€situation.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€stated€that,€when€the€notice€is€given€under€Rule€12.2€(b)Ð Ô  Ðof€the€F.R.C.P.,€€ð ð...€the€district€court€lacked€the€authority€to€order€the€commitment€and€examinationÐ ¬è  Ðof€the€defendant€under€either€Criminal€Rule€12.2€(c)€or€18€USC€4241€and€4242.ðð.€In€that€case€theÐ „À Ðdefense€gave€notice€of€intent€to€offer€the€defense€of€diminished€capacity€and/or€incapacity€to€formÐ \˜ Ðspecific€intent€pursuant€to€rule€12.2€(b).€Ð 4p Ðà  à18.€€At€page€1291€the€òòDavisóó€Court€stated:Ð  H ÐÓÓà8  àà ` àClearly,€the€defendant€could€not€be€committed€for€the€purpose€of€conductingÐ ä  Ða€psychological€or€psychiatric€evaluation€pursuant€to€18€USC€4242.€....Defendant€didÐ Ð  Ðnot€give€notice€of€her€intent€to€rely€on€the€defense€of€insanity,€and€disclaims€suchÐ ¼ø Ðintent.€€Rather,€ò òshe€gave€notice€of€her€intent€ð ðto€introduce€expert€testimonyÐ ¨ ä Ðrelating€to€a€mental€disease€or€defect€or€any€other€mental€condition€....€bearingÐ ˜!Ô Ðupon€the€issue€of€guiltó ó.Є"ÀÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àSection€4242€neither€permits€nor€requires€a€court„ordered€examination€by€theÐ `$œ ÐGovernment€regarding€defendantððs€ð ðmental€conditionðð€at€the€time€of€the€allegedÐ L%ˆ  Ðoffence€when€the€defendant€gives€notice€of€her€intent€to€rely€on€expert€testimony€onÐ 8&t! Ðthe€subject.Ð$'`"Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à.....Ðü(8!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àOn€the€other€hand,€the€facts€on€which€the€defendant€is€required€to€give€noticeÐ Ô*#& Ðunder€subdivisions€(a)€and€(b)€differ,€in€a€highly€significant€way.€ò ò€Subdivision€(a)Ð À+ü#' Ðdirects€the€defendant€to€give€notice€of€his€or€her€intent€ð ðto€rely€upon€the€defenseÐ °,ì$( Ðof€insanityðð€while€subdivision€(b)€directs€the€defendant€to€give€notice€of€her€orÐ œ-Ø%) Ðhis€intent€ð ðto€introduce€expert€testimony€...ððó ó.€As€Congress€has€already€recognizedÐ Ä Ðin€18€USC€4242,€an€insanity€defense€will€necessarily€put€in€issue€a€very€specificÐ ´ð Ðquestion€regarding€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€at€the€time€of€the€offence,€andÐ   Ü Ðwill€therefore€require€that€the€government€be€permitted€to€examine€the€defendant.€Ð Œ È ÐBy€contrast,€the€introduction€of€expert€testimony€regarding€a€mental€condition,Ð x ´ Ðdisease,€or€defect€does€not€particularly€suggest€the€need€for€an€examination€of€theÐ d   Ðdefendant,€let€alone€require€it.ÐP ŒÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àThe€kinds€of€expert€testimony€which€could€be€presented€regarding€the€defendantððsÐ (d Ðmental€condition€may€vary€widely.€...€Expert€testimony€may€generally€describe€theÐ P  Ðeffects€of€a€particular€condition,€relying€on€other€evidence€to€establish€the€defendantÐ <  Ðsuffered€from€that€condition,€or€it€may€particularly€concern€the€defendant,€based€uponÐ ì(  Ðexamination€or€observation.ÐØ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  à.....Ð °ì  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€commentary€notably€does€not€suggest€the€government€would€beÐ ˆÄ Ðprejudiced€if€it€were€not€given€sufficient€notice€to€enable€it€to€examine€the€defendant.Ð t° ÐAs€the€commentary€implies,€the€government€can€prepare€to€meet€expert€defenseÐ `œ Ðevidence€in€a€variety€of€ways,€including€the€retention€of€a€government€expert€toÐ Lˆ Ðattend€at€trial€and€assist€the€government€in€cross€examination,€and€review€of€evidenceÐ 8t Ðrelied€upon€by€the€defense€expert.€€Thus€the€need€for€advance€notice€of€expertÐ $` Ðevidence€does€€not€imply€a€court„ordered€examination€of€the€defendant€is€intendedÐ L Ðor€appropriate.€€ò òThe€commentary€to€Rule€12.2€(b)€does€not€demonstrate€theÐ ü8 Ðdrafters€intended€the€notice€to€prompt€a€court€ordered€examination€of€theÐ ì( Ðdefendant€under€Rule€12.2€(c).ððó ó€(Emphasis€provided)ÓÓÐØÐ Ð  Ðà  à19.€This€case,€and€it€related€jurisprudence,€indicates€that€the€Court€has€the€power,€after€a€caseÐ ¸ ô Ðby€case€examination€of€the€facts,€to€order€the€mental€examination€not€as€a€matter€of€right€for€theÐ "Ì ÐGovernment€but€as€an€exercise€of€the€Courtððs€inherent€power€to€direct€proceedings.€The€Davis€CourtÐ h$¤ Ðestablished,€at€1295:Ð @&|! ÐÓÓà8  àà ` àð ðWhile€neither€Rule€12.2€(c)€nor€18€USC€4241€and€4242€authorizes€a€districtÐ (T # Ðcourt€to€order€a€custodial€pretrial€examination€of€the€defendant€concerning€his€or€herÐ )@!$ Ðmental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€ò òthe€statute€and€rule€do€not€displace€extantÐ ð),"% Ðinherent€authority€to€order€a€reasonable,€noncustodial€examination€of€aÐ à*#& Ðdefendant€under€appropriate€circumstancesó ó.€The€extent€of€this€authority€of€courseÐ Ì+$' Ðâ âmust€be€determined€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€....€The€district€court€here€has€Ô_ÔtheÐ ¼,ø$( ÐÑÐ%Ñâ âÑ–ÈÑâ âÑ  Ñinherent€authority€to€order€an€examination€of€the€defendant,€provided€theÐ ’ Ðexamination€is€both€reasonable€and€non„custodial.ððÐ~ìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌÓÓà  à20.€Since€such€an€examination€does€not€arise€as€a€matter€of€right,€the€manner€in€which€theÐ V Ä Ðsame€is€to€be€conducted€should€be€differentiated€for€a€12.2(a)€or€12.2€(c)€examination.Ð . œ Ðà@hhìàIV.€òòTerms€Under€Which€Examination€of€Defendant€by€Governmentððs€Expert€Should€be€HeldóóˆÐ t Ðà  à21.€€Having€established€that€the€Government€does€not€have€access€to€an€examination€as€aÐ ÞL  Ðright,€but€rather€under€a€Courtððs€order,€the€question€arises€concerning€the€manner€in€which€thisÐ ¶$  Ðexamination€is€to€be€held.Ð Žü  Ðà  à22.€The€defense€identified€two€main€issues€here,€being€(1)€whether€this€examination€shouldÐ fÔ  Ðbe€held€in€a€custodial€setting,€and€(2)€the€extent€and€scope€of€the€examination.Ð >¬ Ðà  à23.€The€Government€has€advanced€that€if€the€Court€is€to€admit€the€testimony,€it€will€requestÐ „ Ðthat€the€defendant€be€evaluated€under€custody€at€a€BOP€facility.Ð î\ Ðà  à24.€€Reasons€of€economy,€both€in€terms€of€time€and€money,€militate€against€theÐ Æ4 ÐGovernmentððs€€proposed€alternative.€Additionally,€a€major€consideration€in€this€case€is€the€libertyÐ ž  Ðinterest€of€defendant,€who€is€currently€in€bail,€and€will€be€incarcerated€as€a€practical€consequenceÐ v ä Ðof€raising€a€defense,€not€for€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€Bail.€Indeed€none€of€the€elements€requiredÐ N"¼ Ðfor€revocation€of€bail€under€18€Ô_ÔUSCÔ_Ô€3148€(b)€are€present€in€this€case.Ð &$” Ðà  à25.€€Ô_ÔMr.DefendantÔ_Ô€is€currently€being€treated€by€two€mental€health€experts,€Dr.€€€€,€aÐ þ%l! Ðpsychiatrist,€and€Dr.€€€,€a€psychologist,€as€part€of€the€conditions€imposed€for€release€on€bail.€€This€twoÐ Ö'D # Ðexperts€are€familiar€with€the€case,€since€they€have€both€treated€defendant€€at€least€since€July,€1999,Ð ®)"% Ðâ âand€therefore€are€familiar€with€his€clinical€situation,€treatment€received,€and€therapeutic€options.Ð †+ô#' Ðà  à26.€€In€contrast,€Mr.€Defendant€would€be€evaluated€in€Ô_ÔFCIÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔButnerÔ_Ô€by€physicians€who€do€notÐ ’ Ðâ âhave€prior€knowledge€of€the€case,€who€would€rely€on€the€medical€files€of€Dr.€€€€€and€Dr.€€€€€€,€and€whoÐ j Ø Ðwould€have€to€ð ðstart€from€scratchðð.Ð B ° Ðà  à27.€€Both€Dr.€€€€€€and€Dr.€€€€currently€treat€defendant€under€a€contract€with€the€Miami€officeÐ  ˆ Ðof€Pre€Trial€Services.€Neither€have€been€contracted€by€the€defense€nor€by€the€Government.€€TheÐ ò` Ðexpense€of€the€treatment€they€give€defendant€is,€and€will€continue€to€be,€borne€by€Pre€Trial€Services.Ð Ê8  Ðà  à28.€Based€on€the€above,€to€put€it€bluntly,€it€is€both€faster€and€cheaper€to€order€a€non„custodial€Ð ¢  Ðexamination€by€Dr.€€€€€€and€Dr.€€€€€.Ð zè  Ðà  à29.€€These€doctors€are€in€the€best€position€to€provide€objective€non€partisan€evaluation€ofÐ RÀ Ðdefendant.Ð *˜ Ðà  à30.€However€even€if€the€Government€insisted€that€it€wanted€itððs€own€experts,€that€by€itselfÐ p Ðshould€not€be€the€single€reason€for€a€custodial€examination€at€Ô_ÔFCIÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔButnerÔ_Ô.Ð ÚH Ðà  à31.€€Again,€were€this€defendant€ordered€to€submit€to€examination€at€Ô_ÔFCIÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔButnerÔ_Ô,€he€will€beÐ ²  Ðincarcerated€as€a€practical€consequence€of€raising€a€defense,€not€for€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€Bail.Ð Šø ÐAs€far€as€is€know€defendant€has€not€violated€the€terms€of€his€pre€trial€release.€Repeated€due€to€itððsÐ b!Ð Ðimportance,€ò ònone€of€the€elements€required€for€revocation€of€bail€under€18€Ô_ÔUSCÔ_Ô€3148€(b)€areÐ :#¨ Ðpresent€in€this€caseó ó.Ð %ˆ  Ðà  à32.€€The€defense€proposes€that€the€Government€can€evaluate€defendant€in€a€non„custodialÐ ú&h" Ðsetting,€which€will€provide€to€the€Government€all€the€information€it€needs€without€imposing€anÐ Ò(@!$ Ðâ âundue€burden€on€Mr.€Ô_ÔDefendant.Ô_ÔÐ ª*#& Ðà  à33.€€An€additional€consideration€are€the€terms€of€the€examination€to€be€held.€€Of€particularÐ ’ Ðâ âconsideration€are€fifth€amendment€issues€that€might€arise€due€to€the€examination.Ð j Ø Ðà  à34.€€Addressing€specifically€this€point,€in€an€extensive€footnote€the€òòDavisóó€court€stated:Ð B ° ÐÓÓà8  àà ` àð ðÔ_ÔFNÔ_Ô€8.€The€defendant's€statements€to€the€government€expert€during€theÐ  ˆ Ðexamination€are€unquestionably€"testimonial."€òòEstelleóó;€also€see€òòPennsylvania€v.Ð t ÐÔ_ÔMuizÔ_Ôóó,€496€U.S.€582,€110€L.€Ed.€2d€528,€110€S.€Ct.€2638€(1990).€Although€court„Ð ò` Ðordered€examinations€regarding€insanity€have€generally€been€found€not€to€violate€theÐ ÞL  ÐFifth€Amendment,€the€fact€that€the€defendant's€mental€state€is€an€element€of€the€crimeÐ Ê8  Ðwhich€the€government€must€prove€may€differentiate€a€defendant's€expert€evidenceÐ ¶$  Ðabout€her€or€his€mental€condition€from€a€claim€of€insanity€for€purposes€ofÐ ¢  Ðdetermining€whether€a€compelled€pretrial€examination€of€the€defendant€violates€theÐ Žü  ÐFifth€Amendment€privilege€against€self„incrimination.Ðzè Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€defendant€who€claims€insanity€interjects€a€new€issue€into€the€proceedingsÐ RÀ Ðon€which€he€or€she€bears€the€burden€of€proof.€18€U.S.C.€17.€The€privilege€is€notÐ >¬ Ðviolated€by€an€examination,€because€the€examination€does€not€concern€an€elementÐ *˜ Ðof€the€crime.€SeeÔÿÔ€Ôÿ‰\ÔòòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454,€465,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€359,€101€S.€Ct.Ð „ Ð1866€(1981).€The€limited€purpose€of€the€examination€concomitantly€restricts€the€useÐ p Ðthe€government€can€make€of€it:€The€results€of€the€examination€can€only€be€used€toÐ î\ Ðrebut€defendant's€expert€evidence.€ò òEstelle€teaches€that€a€defendant's€compelledÐ ÚH Ðtestimony€before€a€government€expert,€and€the€fruits€of€the€examination€(i.e.,€theÐ Ê8 Ðexpert's€conclusions),€cannot€be€used€against€the€defendant€in€the€government'sÐ ¶$ Ðcase„in„chiefó ó.ТРР ÐÌà8  àà ` àò òWhen€the€defendant€claims€"diminished€capacity,"€however,€he€or€sheÐ ~ ì Ðseeks€to€undercut€the€government's€proof€of€an€element€of€the€offense.Ð j!Ø ÐTherefore,€any€compelled€examination€will€necessarily€involve€self„Ð V"Ä Ðincriminationó ó.€òòEstelleóó,€451€U.S.€454,€68€L.€Ed.€2d€359,€101€S.€Ct.€1866.€While€RuleÐ B#° Ð12.2(c)€would€prohibit€the€government€from€introducing€the€incriminating€statementsÐ 2$  Ð(or€€expert€testimony€based€on€them)€unless€the€defendant€introduces€testimonyÐ %Œ  Ðregarding€mental€condition,€the€existence€of€an€exclusionary€rule€will€not€easilyÐ  &x! Ðjustify€a€compelled€examination€in€the€first€place.€Exclusion€is€a€remedy€for€aÐ ö&d" Ðconstitutional€violation;€the€defendant€should€not€be€precluded€from€preventing€theÐ â'P # Ðconstitutional€violation€from€occurring.ÐÎ(¬ Ðof€the€privilege.Ð „ Ðà  à36.€€Based€on€the€above€it€is€imperative€that€the€examination€of€Mr.€€Defendant€be€given€theÐ î\ Ðguarantees€that€the€statement€by€him€given€to€the€Governmentððs€expert€not€be€admitted€unless€theyÐ Æ4 Ðare€directly€related€to€the€issue€raised€by€the€notice€under€Rule€12.2€(b),€namely€expert€testimonyÐ ž  Ðdirected€towards€mental€disease,€defect€and€mental€conditions€of€the€defendant€bearing€upon€theÐ v ä Ðissue€of€Guilt.Ð N"¼ Ðà  àWHEREFORE,€defendant€respectfully€requests€this€Honorable€Court€to€take€notice€of€theÐ &$” Ðabove€and€grant€the€request.Ô‡XjhXXXjhÔÐ þ%l! ÐÔ#†XjhXXXjhÐk#Ôà  àI€HEREBY€CERTIFY:€That€a€copy€of€the€foregoing€Motion€was€served€to€U.S.€Attorney€Ð Ö'D # ÐÔ_ÔGillermoÔ_Ô€Gil€ò ò(Att.€Assistant€U.S.€Attorney€Antonio€Ô_ÔBaznÔ_Ô)ó ó,€Federico€Ô_ÔDegetauÔ_Ô€Federal€Building,Ð ®)"% ÐRoom€452,€Ô_ÔHatoÔ_Ô€Rey,€Puerto€Rico€00918.Ð Ž+ü#' Ðà  àIn€San€Juan,€Puerto€Rico,€this€Ô ƒÝ ÔSeptember€10,€2001Ô!  Ô.Ð f-Ô%) ÐÔ‡XjhXXXjhÔÓÓà  àÔ#†XjhXXXjh9n#Ôà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJoseph€C.€Laws,€Jr.Ð ’ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFederal€Public€DefenderÐ ~ì Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_____________________Ð B ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€à À àÐ . œ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAssistant€Federal€Public€DefenderÐ  ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÔ_ÔUSDCÔ_Ô„PRÐ t Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à259€F.€D.€RooseveltÐ ò` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÔ_ÔHatoÔ_Ô€Rey,€P.R.€00918Ð ÞL  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTEL.€(787)€281„4922Ð Ê8  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFAX.€(787)€281„4899