Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cr-00509/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cr-00509-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernadette Dickerson
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

 v. ) 2:14cr509-MHT 

) (WO) 

BERNADETTE DICKERSON )

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Defendant Bernadette Dickerson is now before 

the court for sentencing for the offense of 

attempting to bribe a witness not to testify against 

her son in an impending federal trial, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A). With the consent of 

Dickerson in open court on March 23, 2015, the court 

orders the following: (1) an outpatient psychiatric 

or psychological evaluation to assess her current 

psychiatric condition and competency to proceed, 

specifically her ability to assist counsel in her 

defense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241; and (2) a 

‘presentence study’ on Dickerson’s mental health 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b), for the purpose of 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 8
2 

assisting the court in fashioning an appropriate 

sentence. 

 This evaluation is warranted. While the court 

does not assume that all allegations that have been 

made against her are true, persons have asserted 

that Dickerson has engaged in troubling behavior 

during the pendency of this case: she allegedly 

started multiple arguments with other inmates and 

allegedly got in a fight at the jail, allegedly had 

to be removed from a courtroom due to her behavior, 

and allegedly was hostile towards a probation 

officer. The court also notes that she sent the 

court a letter attempting to withdraw her guilty 

plea and making serious accusations of wrongdoing 

against her attorney and various other members of 

the court system involved in her case, but she later 

changed her mind and disavowed the request to 

withdraw her plea. In addition, she clearly is 

having difficulty in working with her attorney and 

believes that he is working with the government 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 8
3 

against her. Dickerson also reports having multiple 

serious medical conditions and receiving inadequate 

care for those conditions in jail. 

 Because of the above-mentioned allegations 

(which the court does not assume are true) and 

particularly due to her difficulty in working with 

her lawyer, the court has a “bona fide doubt” 

regarding defendant Dickerson’s mental condition, 

United States v. Nickels, 324 F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th 

Cir. 2003). Given this doubt, the law requires that 

the court further investigate and determine 

Dickerson’s ability to work with counsel. 

 In addition to the above competence study, the 

court also orders a mental-health evaluation 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b), for the purpose of 

assisting it in fashioning an appropriate sentence. 

“Although district courts are no longer bound to 

follow the Sentencing Guidelines after United States 

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), they still must 

consult the Guidelines and take them into account 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 8
4 

when sentencing defendants.” United States v. Todd, 

618 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1352–53 (M.D. Ala.2009) 

(Thompson, J.). The court must calculate the 

applicable range of sentences recommended by the 

Guidelines. The court may then decide to impose a 

sentence outside of the Guidelines system, commonly 

known as a “variance.” 

 The court is bound, however, to impose a 

sentence that is reasonable. The factors set forth 

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) guide the court's 

determination of the reasonableness of a sentence. 

Those factors are (1) the nature and circumstances 

of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics 

of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence 

imposed to punish the offender, protect the public 

from the defendant, rehabilitate the defendant, 

deter others, and provide medical care; (4) the 

kinds of sentences available; (5) the sentencing 

range established by the Sentencing Guidelines; (6) 

any pertinent policy statements issued by the 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

Sentencing Commission; (7) the need to avoid 

unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants 

with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct; and (8) the need for restitution. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

 U.S. Probation officers routinely prepare 

presentence investigation reports to assist the 

court during sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3552(a). However, § 3552(b) also authorizes the 

court to order a “study of the defendant” if it 

“desires more information than is otherwise 

available to it as a basis for determining the 

sentence to be imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b). The 

court here desires a report on how Dickerson's 

mental health impacts any or all of the eight 

sentencing factors listed above. The presentence 

study pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b) should answer 

how Dickerson's condition impacts the sentence given 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including both the amount 

of incarceration and treatment recommendations. See 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

United States v. Piggott, 2014 WL 6750513, at *3 

(M.D. Ala. 2014) (Thompson, J.). A § 3552(b) study 

“shall be conducted in the local community by 

qualified consultants.” 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b). 

*** 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 

 (1) Dr. Catherine Boyer of Clinical 

Psychologists, P.C., 248 East Glenn Avenue, Auburn, 

AL 36830, (334) 821-3350, is appointed to perform a 

psychiatric/psychological evaluation of defendant 

Bernadette Dickerson. 

 (2) Defendant Dickerson is to meet with Dr. 

Boyer for the purpose of having the evaluation 

conducted. 

 (3) If Dr. Boyer judges it necessary for the 

examination and testing to occur at her office, the 

United States Marshal is to arrange for defendant 

Dickerson to be present for the tests and/or 

examination there. 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

 (4) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(c), Dr. Boyer 

is to conduct the necessary battery of tests to 

provide the court with the requisite information 

concerning defendant Dickerson’s competency at this 

time, which shall include the following: 

 (a) Defendant Dickerson’s personal medical 

history and present symptoms; 

 (b) A description of the psychiatric, 

psychological, and medical tests that were employed 

and their results; and 

 (c) Dr. Boyer’s findings, opinions, and 

conclusions as to defendant Dickerson’s diagnosis 

and prognosis, and whether defendant Dickerson’s 

current condition is such that she is unable to 

understand the nature and consequences of the 

proceedings against her or to assist properly in her 

defense.

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 7 of 8
 (5) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552, Dr. Boyer is to 

conduct the necessary battery of tests to provide the 

court with the requisite information regarding her 

findings, opinions, and conclusions as to how the 

mental condition of Dickerson should affect the 

sentence, including but not limited to any 

recommendations for treatment that could address any 

identified mental-health conditions or issues, or that 

could assist Dickerson with compliance with conditions 

the court may impose. 

 (6) Dr. Boyer is to file her report with the court 

by no later than April 10, 2015. She is also to 

provide copies to counsel for defendant Dickerson and 

counsel for the United States. 

 (7) The Department of Justice shall have 

responsibility for the costs of said examination. See

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7, Pt. A § 320.20.20. 

 DONE, this the 24th day of March, 2015. 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cr-00509-MHT-TFM Document 53 Filed 03/24/15 Page 8 of 8