United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. JORDAN III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
criminal action is before the Court on multiple pre-trial
motions, which the Court will address in turn.
Motion to Reconsider Release of Testing Data 
Court first turns to the Government's motion to
reconsider the Court's release of psychiatric testing
data . Defendant Jerome Benamon opposes the motion.
November 17, 2017, the Court entered an Order  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.
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.  at 2-3.
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
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.
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.  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.
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.  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  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.
the Government's motion for reconsideration  is
denied. If the Court grants Benamon's motion to retain a
qualified expert, ...