Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Slayton

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

January 12, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KHALIL SLAYTON, JEROME BENAMON, AND EDWARD JAMES MOBLEY

          ORDER

          DANIEL P. JORDAN III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This criminal action is before the Court on multiple pre-trial motions, which the Court will address in turn.

         1. Motion to Reconsider Release of Testing Data [105]

         The Court first turns to the Government's motion to reconsider the Court's release of psychiatric testing data [105]. Defendant Jerome Benamon opposes the motion.

         On November 17, 2017, the Court entered an Order [103] granting Benamon's request to allow access to data collected during a Court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of co-defendant Khalil Slayton, who intends to testify for the Government against Benamon. Specifically, Benamon sought: (1) the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and (2) the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP). The Government now asks the Court to reconsider that decision and decline to release the data.

         The Government advances four arguments: (1) Benamon's expert, Dr. Mark Webb, is not qualified to interpret the data; (2) the data does not contain any Brady or Giglio material and “has nothing to do with the underlying facts at issue”; (3) the VIP was not scored due to a software problem so the raw data is meaningless; and (4) Slayton did not consent to disclosure of this data. Gov't's Mot. [105] at 2-3.

         To begin, the Government filed no response to the motion seeking release of this data, and while it did oppose release in a telephonic conference, the Court does not recall the Government making its current arguments before the disputed Order was entered. On that basis, reconsideration could be denied.

         Nevertheless, Benamon has substantively responded and agrees that his expert, Dr. Mark Webb, is not trained to interpret the data, so he is seeking to retain a second expert-a psychologist with the required training. The addition of such an expert may also resolve the unscored-data problem the Government raises, and that individual should be given an opportunity to review the data.

         As to the Government's argument that Slayton did not consent to disclosure of this data, it does not cite any supporting authority. And Slayton himself neither joined in the motion for reconsideration nor raised any objections to Benamon's request before the Court initially granted it. See Slayton Obj. [99] at 3 (arguing against new mental evaluation and opposing admissibility of different information found in original mental evaluation). In any event, the Court will take appropriate steps to protect the information but finds that Benamon's rights outweigh the privacy concerns the Government asserts on Slayton's behalf.

         Finally, the Court does not discount the Government's argument that the data “has nothing to do with the underlying facts at issue.” Gov't's Mot. [105] at 3. In fact, the Court's prior Order referenced the Government's concerns regarding the admissibility of potential testimony regarding Slayton:

At this stage in the case, the Court is not prepared to say whether potential testimony regarding Slayton's Anti-Social Personality Disorder will be admissible. But it seems that the underlying data may speak to the concerns the Government raises in its Motion to Exclude. And even if Dr. Webb is eventually excluded, there may still be a reasonable basis to cross examine Slayton regarding the diagnosis. The underlying data and test results may speak to the admissibility of those questions and offer impeachment material to Defendant. The Court therefore concludes that the materials should be produced. Whether they are admissible is an issue for another day.

Order [103] at 2. The Court's mind is unchanged. Slayton is a key government witness, and there is potential impeachment value to the evidence. While the Government was within its rights to vigorously oppose the motion, the data should now be produced.

         Accordingly, the Government's motion for reconsideration [105] is denied. If the Court grants Benamon's motion to retain a qualified expert, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.