U.S. v. Nichols

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JAMES ALLEN NICHOLS

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

Date published: Jul 20, 2005

Cause No. 2:05 CR 51 (N.D. Ind. Jul. 20, 2005)

Opinion

Cause No. 2:05 CR 51.

July 20, 2005

OPINION AND ORDER

ANDREW P. RODOVICH, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court on the Request for Additional Time to Notice of Insanity Defense [sic] filed by the defendant, James Allen Nichols, on June 7, 2005. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Background

A 20 count indictment was returned against the defendant on April 7, 2005. At the April 11, 2005 initial appearance, the government asked that the defendant be held without bond. The detention hearing and the arraignment were scheduled for April 14, 2005, but the detention hearing was continued until April 19, 2005 at the request of the defendant. The defendant was ordered detained, and a detention order was issued on April 25, 2005.

At the April 14 arraignment, the defendant's attorney, James Thiros, was asked whether the defendant was competent to stand trial and assist in his defense. Mr. Thiros answered in the affirmative. At the conclusion of the arraignment, the standard order was entered requiring any pretrial motions to be filed by May 14, 2005. At the request of the defendant, the motion deadline was extended to May 31, 2005 and again to June 14, 2005.

The defendant currently is charged in three separate criminal cases pending in state court. The first charge was filed on November 3, 2000. The Thiros law firm also represents the defendant in the state court proceedings.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(a) provides:

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 defendant to file the notice late, grant additional trial-preparation time, or make other appropriate orders.

As previously stated, the time for filing pretrial motions expired on June 14, 2005.

In support of his request for additional time, the defendant has referred to voluminous discovery provided by the government. However, the exact nature of the charges was disclosed to the defendant in the April 7 indictment, and more details were provided at the April 19 detention hearing. Additionally, the defendant has been represented by the same law firm since the original state court charges were filed in 2000.

The pending motion states "counsel needs to make arrangements to have his client examined." Given the nature of the charges and defense counsel's familiarity with this defendant, no explanation has been given why this examination was not conducted earlier. Additional time might be warranted if an examination had been conducted, the defendant had been diagnosed with a mental problem, and the defendant needed time to file a report establishing a basis for the insanity defense.

Finally, at the arraignment, defense counsel stated that the defendant was competent to stand trial and assist in his defense. Although this is a separate issue than an insanity defense, see generally 18 U.S.C. § 4241 et. seq., the question of a possible mental illness could have been raised at that time.

For the foregoing reasons, the Request for Additional Time to Notice of Insanity Defense [sic] filed by the defendant, James Allen Nichols, on June 7, 2005 is DENIED.