Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
U.S. v. MINERD
March 19, 2002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JOSEPH P. MINERD, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Senior United States District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Joseph P. Minerd is charged with maliciously damaging and
destroying, by means of fire and an explosive, a building which was used
in interstate commerce and in an activity affecting interstate commerce,
which conduct resulted in the deaths of Deana Mitts and Kayla Mitts, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844 (i). The government has served notice
that it intends to seek the death penalty if the defendant is convicted,
under the Federal Death Penalty Act ("FDPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et
The government has filed a Renewal of Motion for Discovery of Mental
Health Evidence and for Order Compelling Defendant to Submit to Mental
Health Examination (Doc. 234) and a Motion to Compel Disclosure of Mental
Health Evidence and Proposed Procedures for Disclosure (Doc. 256). Each
motion seeks an order permitting the defendant to be examined by the
government's mental health experts in advance of trial, and, in
addition, requests certain discovery as to Mr. Minerd's mental health
evidence. The defendant strenuously opposes any examination before the
conclusion of the guilt/innocence phase of this capital case.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable
law, the government's motions will be granted in part and denied in part
for the reasons set forth below.
The government filed its first Motion for Discovery of Mental Health
Evidence and for Order Compelling Defendant to Submit to Mental Health
Examination (Doc. 139) on July 7, 2001.
On January 22, 2002, the defendant filed a Supplemental Response to the
government's earlier motion (Doc. 228). In it, Minerd informed the court
and government counsel that "[t]he defense has recently obtained
background information bearing upon Mr. Minerd's mental status that will
almost certainly be introduced into evidence during any penalty phase. .
. ." Doc. 228 at ¶ 4. Defendant further stated that preliminary
information from a neuropsychologist indicated that Minerd may suffer
from organic brain dysfunction, as a result of a fall and head injury in
1997. Doc. 228 at ¶ 5.
Defendant explained that "some initial testing has been done (and)
additional testing is contemplated." Doc. 228 at ¶ 6. He then
provided information from the initial test results.
Anticipating that the government would now renew its motion for an
order compelling a mental health examination by the government's expert,
counsel for the defendant requested a hearing to define the scope and
circumstances of any evaluation.
The government filed its renewed motion on February 4, 2002, and we set
a hearing on the matter for February 7. At that time, the parties
informed the Court that they had agreed on most of the issues, and that
a hearing was no longer necessary. The defendant stated that it would
file notice by February 19 if it intended to use mental health evidence
during any penalty phase. Counsel for the government explained which
expert he expected to retain, and both parties seemed to agree that the
general procedure set forth in United States v. Beckford, 962 F. Supp. 748
(E.D.Va. 1997) would be appropriate.
Any understanding the parties appeared to have reached had evaporated
by the time the defendant filed his Combined Response and Objections to
the Prosecution's Motion (Doc. 249), which generally asserts that the
government is not entitled to have Minerd examined nor to discovery of
any his mental health evidence, and that the procedures outlined in
Beckford are inapplicable to this case.
The government responded on February 28, 2002, by filing a Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Mental Health Evidence and Proposed Procedures for
Disclosure (Doc. 256), which sets forth an alternate procedure. Minerd
Buy This Entire Record For