Opinion ID: 667652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion to Appoint Psychological Expert

Text: 5 Defendant's first claim on appeal is that the district court improperly denied his motion to appoint a psychological expert to aid in preparing his defense. We review such a denial only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Moss, 544 F.2d 954, 961 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1077, 97 S.Ct. 822, 50 L.Ed.2d 797 (1977); see United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373, 376 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 908, 107 S.Ct. 1353, 94 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 1 6 In requesting a court-appointed expert, the burden is on the defendant to show that such services are necessary to an adequate defense. Greschner, 802 F.2d at 376. Defendant has not carried, nor could he carry, that burden in this case. 7 It is undisputed that defendant was found competent to stand trial. Further, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g) requires only general intent. See United States v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917, 921 (10th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767, 773 (9th Cir.1987). Defendant does not contend that he lacked the capacity to understand his actions to the extent required for a general intent crime. The only conceivably legitimate need for a psychological expert in this case relates to defendant's entrapment by estoppel defense. 8 The defense of entrapment by estoppel is implicated where an agent of the government affirmatively misleads a party as to the state of the law and that party proceeds to act on the misrepresentation so that criminal prosecution of the actor implicates due process concerns under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 568-71, 85 S.Ct. 476, 482-84, 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965); Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 437-39, 79 S.Ct. 1257, 1265-67, 3 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1959); United States v. Billue, 994 F.2d 1562, 1568-69 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 939, 127 L.Ed.2d 230 (1994); United States v. Clark, 986 F.2d 65, 69-70 (4th Cir.1993); Tallmadge, 829 F.2d at 767. 2 There must be an active misleading by the government agent, Raley, 360 U.S. at 438, 79 S.Ct. at 1266, and actual reliance by the defendant. Further, the defendant's reliance must be reasonable in light of the identity of the agent, the point of law misrepresented, and the substance of the misrepresentation. See Clark, 986 F.2d at 69; Tallmadge, 829 F.2d at 773-775. 9 We do not foreclose the possibility that a serious deficiency in a defendant's mental capacity might in some future case be relevant to formulating an entrapment by estoppel defense and that in such a case the appointment of a psychological expert might be appropriate. See generally United States v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 1403, 1421-22 (10th Cir.1990) (discussing the use of psychiatric expert testimony in a garden variety entrapment case); United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156, 165 (5th Cir.1988) (same); United States v. Hill, 655 F.2d 512, 516 (3d Cir.1981) (same); United States v. Benveniste, 564 F.2d 335, 339 (9th Cir.1977) (same). We presume that this is the basis of defendant's request for an expert here. However, we do not reach these issues because, the mental capacity of the defendant notwithstanding, we find that application of the entrapment by estoppel doctrine in the case at bar is clearly inappropriate. 10 The defendant alleges no affirmative representation or other active misleading by any government agent that defendant was permitted to possess a firearm after his probation ended. Defendant testified only that his probation officer told him that, as a condition of his probation, defendant could not possess a weapon or go hunting while on probation. This is what a probation officer does--he advises probationers about the terms of probation and makes sure they are carried out. Thus, there is no factual predicate for a valid entrapment by estoppel defense. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to appoint a psychological expert to aid in such a defense. 11 We note also that the experts who completed the pre-trial psychological evaluation of defendant could have been called by the defense to testify to defendant's mental capacity. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(b). This constitutes another ground for finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for the appointment of a new psychological expert.