Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cr-05287/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cr-05287-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Wayne Arnett
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

TIMOTHY WAYNE ARNETT, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CR-F-95-5287 OWW

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S

NOTICE OF INTENT TO

INTRODUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE OF

DIMINISHED CAPACITY PURSUANT

TO FED.R.CRIM. 12.2(b) (Doc.

439)

On July 8, 2005, defendant filed a Notice of Intent to

Introduce Expert Evidence of Diminished Capacity Pursuant to

Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.2(b). 

In the instant notice, defendant asserts that he intends to

introduce expert evidence of his diminished capacity which will

establish that he did not act with the intent to commit the

crimes charged.

Defendant’s notice is stricken as untimely and as

irrelevant. The reasons stated herein are intended to amplify

the reasons for striking this notice stated in open court on July

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

12, 2005.

Rule 12.2(b) and (d) provide in pertinent part:

(b) If a defendant intends to introduce

expert evidence relating to a mental disease

or defect or any other mental condition of

the defendant bearing on ... the issue of

guilt ..., the defendant must - within the

time provided for filing a pretrial motion or

at any later time the court sets - notify an

attorney for the government in writing of

this intention and file a copy of the notice

with the court. The court may, for good

cause shown, allow the defendant to file the

notice late, grant the parties additional

trial-preparation time, or make other

appropriate orders. 

...

(d) If the defendant fails to give notice

under Rule 12.2(b) ..., the court may exclude

any expert evidence from the defendant on the

issue of the defendant's mental disease,

mental defect, or any other mental condition

bearing on the defendant's guilt ....

Defendant asserts that he served notice of his intent to

raise a diminished capacity defense on the court pursuant to Rule

12.2(b) when he filed his declaration under seal in support of

his motion to vacate the trial date on June 1, 2005. 

On May 11, 2005, defendant filed a motion to vacate the

trial date of June 1, 2005. The motion and defendant's

supporting declaration were filed under seal. (Docs. 386 & 387). 

In the motion, defendant asserted in pertinent part that he was

entitled to retain and be examined by a psychiatrist 

when a defendant moves to suppress his

confession on involuntariness grounds, where

a psychiatrist's evaluation of his mental

state in relation to the interrogating

officer's psychological pressure may have

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

overborne his will to resist, he is entitled

to a full examination of the record and the

defendant by a psychiatrist and a 'fair

evidentiary hearing in which both the

underlying factual issues and the

voluntariness of his confession is actually

and reliably determined.' ....

Dr. Gitlin's review of defendant's medical

records before and at the time of defendant's

arrest, police reports, prior testimony of

the arresting officers, and recorded

statements by defendant and the officers on

cassette made during interogation [sic], and

any current testing that Dr. Gitlin might

want to give will take a considerable amount

of time to coordinate and accomplish, as well

as will holding an evidentiary hearing on

this matter afterward. On this basis alone

the current June 1st date for trial should be

vacated because plainly Dr. Gitlin will not

be able to complete his evaluation, and the

Court hold an evidentiary hearing and rule on

this matter reasonably before June 1, 2005. 

In his declaration under seal in support of this motion to vacate

the June 1 trial date, defendant averred in pertinent part:

(3) Dr. Michael Gitlin is a truly competent

and meaningful psychiatrist, who can evaluate

and authoritatively testify in my case

because he specializes in the field of manicdepression - the mental disorder of which I

suffer. ....

...

(9) I need the effective and meaningful

assistance of Dr. Michael Gitlin because of

his expertise in the field of manicdepression in relation to violence. His

evaluation is essential to suppressing my

confession and would assist this Court in

reaching an accurate determination as to

whether my confession was voluntary, and

would result in a hearing that is appropriate

to the nature of the case ....

In the instant notice, defendant notes that a hearing was

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

conducted on May 16, 2005 regarding his sealed motion to vacate

the June 1, 2005 trial date. At that hearing, the motion to

vacate the trial date was granted and the trial continued to 

August 2, 2005. The parties were ordered to file all motions by

June 15, 2005, responses to be filed by July 7, 2005, and the

motions heard on July 11, 2005. Defendant asserts:

[D]efendant renewed his request for a

notebook computer to use in his cell to

ensure that he could meet the Court's

deadline. The Court stated that a ruling on

his long-pending motion on this matter was

forthcoming. [D]efendant did his best, but

could not prepare and file every pretrial

motion that he wanted to by the Court's

cutoff date. And the Court still has not

provided him with a notebook computer or

ruled on his request for one. As a result,

defendant did not have enough time to serve

notice to the government of his intent to

introduce expert evidence of his diminished

capacity before the Court's deadline of June

15, 2005.

Moreover, immediately when defendant realized

that he would not make this deadline and

would not be prepared for trial on August 2,

2005, he once again asked the Court to vacate

the August 2nd trial date. One of the

reasons defendant gave was that he had run

out of time to file all of the pretrial

motions he needed to file, such as the

instant notice. Nevertheless, the court

denied defendant's motion to vacate the

scheduled date of trial.

In addition, defendant did not serve notice

on the government at an earlier date because

he was made to wait on confirmation from a

psychiatrist that he would indeed be willing

to evaluate and [sic] old mental record, in

relation to the charges and arrest, and for a

specific amount for his professional

services. Initially, defendant's

investigator from the Federal Defender's

Office contacted Dr. Kay Jamison. After

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

several months and several attempts to get a

reply, she referred us to Dr. Michael Gitlin,

and then after several more months, he

referred us to Dr. James Rosenberg, who again

after several more months referred us to Dr.

John Deirmenjian, who has finnally [sic]

agreed to evaluate the prior record, test and

interview the defendant and report. 

Defendant has been, therefore, at the mercy

of busy nonresponsive doctors who kept

passing him on to another doctor, in their

own good time. 

Last, defendant has had a motion pending

since April 15, 2005 [sic] to Suppress his

Confession, where he requested an evidentiary

hearing and the services of a psychiatrist's

evaluation. This old motion is still

pending.

Therefore, for good cause shown, defendant

respectfully requests that the Court allow

him to file his notice late upon the

government. Defendant also requests the

necessary funding for Dr. John Deirmenjian's

professional services.

Defendant has not shown good cause for the untimely notice

of intent pursuant to Rule 12.2(b). This case has been before

this court pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's remand for retrial of

the Section 924(c) counts since late September, 2004. At a

status conference on December 20, 2004, Judge Coyle ordered that

defendant's motions be filed by January 10, 2005, for hearing on

February 7, 2005. Defendant filed a motion to amend or correct

record, a motion for discovery, and a motion for telephone access

for legal calls. On February 7, 2005, Judge Coyle set another

motions schedule, ordering that defendant's motions be filed by

February 14, 2005 for a hearing on February 28, 2005. Defendant

filed another motion for discovery. On February 28, 2005, Judge

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1As stated on the record during the hearings on July 11-12,

2005, defendant’s proffer of evidence in support of his contention

that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of his

confession in September 1995 does not substantiate his claim or

demonstrate that an expert could make this diagnosis. 

6

Coyle set jury trial for April 26, 2005. Although no new motions

schedule was set, defendant filed a motion requesting new standby counsel, a motion to dismiss the indictment, a motion

requesting permission to file two additional pretrial motions, a

motion to suppress his confession, and a motion to allow

independent inspection of the firearm and to postpone the trial. 

A hearing was held on March 21, 2005 and jury trial was continued

to June 1, 2005, Judge Coyle also ruling that motions in limine

were due by May 9, 2005. The case was transferred from Judge

Coyle's docket on March 30, 2005. Defendant thereafter filed a

petition for writ of mandate complaining that the reassignment

had not been accomplished correctly. Thereafter, in May, 2005,

defendant again requested continuance of the trial date. See

discussion supra. Defendant had more than ample time to file a

Rule 12.2(b) notice on the government. Allowing defendant to

proceed with this defense at this late date would result in the

continuance of August trial date, to the prejudice of the United

States and the court. This conclusion is reinforced by

representations made by defendant and his investigator, Mr.

Barnes, at the hearing on July 11, 2005 that defendant does not

yet know if he will be able to retain a psychiatrist to examine

him for purposes of suppressing his confession.1 While

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

defendant represented at the hearing on June 30, 2005 on his

latest motion to vacate the trial date that he might need to file

additional motions, he did not advise the United States of this

intent or that he intended to file a Rule 12.2(b) notice when

AUSA Rice was brought back into the courtroom after the in camera

proceedings concerning the request for continuance. Defendant's

attempt to excuse his delay in filing the instant notice a ruling

has not issued on his motion to suppress his confession or for a

notebook computer is without merit given the recitation set forth

above. Finally, defendant's assertion that he notified the court

in the motion to vacate the trial date filed on May 11, 2005 that

he intended to file a Rule 12.2(b) notice of a diminished

capacity defense is not substantiated by the motion itself. It

is clear that defendant was seeking to retain a psychiatrist to

support his motion to suppress his confession as involuntary if

the court ordered an evidentiary hearing in connection with that

motion. Therefore, defendant’s notice is untimely and he has not

shown good cause to allow the untimely notice to be filed.

Furthermore, the proposed diminished capacity defense is

irrelevant. Section 924(c) is not a specific intent crime. See

e.g. United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 223-226 (6th Cir.

1990); United States v. Ames, 1995 WL 110104 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The defense of diminished capacity is not available as a defense

to a general intent crime. See United States v. Martinez, 49

F.3d 1398, 1401 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1065

(1996); United States v. Sneezer, 983 F.2d 920, 922 (9th Cir.

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 836 (1993). Also, from my

research, armed bank robbery is not a specific intent crime. See

United States v. Smith, 638 F.2d 131, 132 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dated: _July 22, 2005

__/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER ___

 OLIVER W. WANGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:95-cr-05287-LJO Document 461 Filed 07/22/05 Page 8 of 8