United States v. Berry

Background

The government petitioned under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 for a determination of Marcus Anthony Berry’s current mental condition and for his continued hospitalization after his federal imprisonment. The petition alleged that Berry had a mental disease and that releasing him would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person.

The opinion recounts Berry’s history of violent conduct, including shooting two people during the underlying offense and physical assaults while detained at Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital. After beginning supervised release in October 2018, he violated release conditions by missing urine testing, meetings with his probation officer, and mental-health treatment. He was rearrested near the end of 2019. At the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, Berry was diagnosed with schizophrenia and continued to experience delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thoughts and conduct, paranoia, and other symptoms.

A five-member Risk Assessment Review panel unanimously concluded that Berry’s release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property because of mental disease, and it recommended civil commitment. The magistrate judge found that Berry had a mental disease, that he posed a substantial risk of bodily injury if released, that the risk was caused by his mental disease, and that no suitable state placement was available. The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition.

Berry’s Objections

Berry objected to the findings of dangerousness and causation. He argued that his last physical aggression occurred in May 2016 and that he had committed no actual or attempted acts of aggression since then. Alternatively, he argued that the government had not proven that his mental illness caused any danger. He did not dispute that no suitable state placement was available.

Court’s Analysis

Under § 4246, the government had to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a mental disease or defect; (2) dangerousness if Berry were released; and (3) the absence of a suitable state placement. The government also had to prove a direct causal connection between Berry’s mental disease and his dangerousness.

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation independently. It held that recent overt violence was not required to find dangerousness. The court considered Berry’s earlier shootings and assaults, his history of aggressive and inappropriate conduct, his threats involving Rachel, his ongoing mental-health symptoms, his failure to participate in treatment while on supervised release, and his lack of insight into his illness. The court concluded that his lack of recent physical violence could be explained by seclusion, confinement, treatment, and the controlled conditions of supervised release rather than by an absence of dangerousness.

The court also found the required causal connection. The Risk Assessment Review panel unanimously linked the risk to Berry’s mental disease, and the government’s expert testified that Berry’s worsening schizophrenia created a risk that he would be aggressive, violent, or dangerous if released into the community while those symptoms remained. The court noted that Berry offered no contrary evidence and concluded that the government had met its burden.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Berry’s objection, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and granted the government’s petition to determine Berry’s present mental condition under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. The court ordered that Berry be committed to the custody of the Attorney General and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.