United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER STRIKING NOTICE OF INSANITY DEFENSE AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PSYCHIATRIC EXAM
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
week before his trial is set to begin, Jeffrey Paul Barnard-a
Defendant who is proceeding pro se-issued a Notice of
Insanity under Rule 12.2 and made a demand for a psychiatric
evaluation. The Court concludes that the motion is untimely,
and that Mr. Barnard has not offered any explanation for its
tardiness. Absent any indication of good cause for a late
notice, the Court views Mr. Barnard’s motion as another
attempt to delay the trial scheduled to begin June 7, 2016.
The Court denies the motion.
criminal complaint was issued against Jeffrey Paul Barnard on
June 19, 2014, a federal grand jury indicted him on July 17,
2014 for being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Compl. (ECF
No. 1); Indictment (ECF No. 12)
(Indictment). The incidents that resulted in the
indictment took place on May 31 and June 1, 2014.
the exception of a case involving a Canadian citizen who
fought extradition to the United States, Mr. Barnard’s
case is the oldest criminal case on the court docket that has
not been resolved by guilty plea or trial. In the course of
the pretrial proceedings, the Court has granted motions to
withdraw by four of the District of Maine’s most able
criminal defense attorneys. Speedy Trial Order (ECF
No. 44); Oral Order Granting Mot. to Withdraw (ECF
Nos. 34, 125, 200). It has also granted eight motions to
continue trial. Speedy Trial Order (ECF Nos. 65, 70,
77, 111, 119, 128, 146, 167).
March 1, 2016, the Court set the case for trial beginning
June 7, 2016. Speedy Trial Order (ECF No. 167). On
May 31, 2016, Mr. Barnard filed a notice of insanity and
motion for psychiatric exam. Notice of Insanity under
Rule 12.2(a) F.C.C.R., Mental Examination Notice of
Intent (ECF No. 221) (Def.’s Mot.);
Mot. for Psychiatric Exam (ECF No. 222). On June 1,
2016, the Government opposed Mr. Barnard’s motion.
Gov’t’s Obj. to the Def.’s Notice of
Insanity Defense and Req. for Psychiatric Evaluation
(ECF No. 223) (Gov’t’s Opp’n).
Jeffrey Paul Barnard’s Motion
Barnard moves for the Court “to order defendant to
undergo examination in accordance to 18 U.S.C. § 4242,
to allow defendant to be examined, to determine the existence
of insanity and[/]or defect at the time of the instant charge
. . . ." Def.’s Mot. at 1. Mr. Barnard
enclosed with the motion, inter alia, a letter to the Court
in which he announces his intention to move for a pretrial
conference “to discuss all the mitigating factors in my
case" and in which he reiterates his desire to continue
trial. Id. Attach. 1 Letter from Jeffrey P.
Barnard to the Court (May 26, 2016) at 1 (ECF No. 211)
(May 26 Letter).
Government argues Mr. Barnard’s motion is untimely, as
Rule 12.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
requires a defendant intending to assert an insanity defense
to provide notice before the pretrial motion deadline, which
it says was February 29, 2016. Gov’t’s
Opp’n at 1-2. It cites United States v.
Cartagena-Carrasquillo, 70 F.3d 706, 710 (1st Cir. 1995)
for the proposition that “[c]ourts are well within
their discretion in denying a defendant’s belated
request to pursue an insanity defense." Id. at
2. According to the Government, Mr. Barnard’s pro se
status does not provide good cause for his late notice.
Id. (citing United States v. Dubrule, Nos.
14-6290, 14-6376, 2016 WL 2610255, at *13 (6th Cir. May 6,
2016)). Finally, it writes that “[t]he Court warned the
defendant that this case would reach its end at the June 7,
2016, trial setting. The defendant’s attempt to
disregard the warning should be denied." Id. at
Notice of an Insanity Defense. A defendant who intends to
assert a defense of insanity at the time of the alleged
offense must so notify an attorney for the government in
writing within the time provided for filing a pretrial
motion, or at any later time the court sets, and file a copy
of the notice with the clerk. A defendant who fails to do so
cannot rely on an insanity defense. The court may, for good
cause, allow the ...