Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:17cr131-MHT (WO)
03-15-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MELISSA JACQUELYN COOPER
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the issue of whether to send defendant Melissa Jacquelyn Cooper for a mental-health evaluation for the purpose of determining an appropriate sentence. Cooper pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud in September 2017, and the offense was related to her drug use. She was released on bond on December 1, 2017, and on December 5, 2017, she tested positive for methamphetamine, MDMA, and synthetic cannabinoids. Her bond was revoked, and she has remained in custody since that time. While preparing for sentencing, the court was made aware that as a minor Cooper was the victim of sexual assault by a police officer, that she never received treatment for that psychological trauma, and that her life began to spiral downward from that point. Cooper faced another trauma in 2010 when she was diagnosed with cancer and was promptly abandoned by her husband. The court suspects that Cooper's criminal behavior may stem from the traumas she has experienced and possibly resulting mental illness. Thus. based on the representations made on the record on March 1, 2, and 15, 2018, the court requires a mental-health evaluation of Cooper in order to determine an appropriate sentence.
This court has held that where there is a reasonable basis to believe that a defendant's mental disorder--including a substance-abuse disorder--contributed to the conduct underlying his or her conviction, the court should order a mental-health evaluation. See United States v. Kimbrough, No. 2:07cr260, 2018 WL 989541 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 20, 2018); see also United States v. Mosley, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (discussing the issue of substance-abuse disorders in further detail). Such an evaluation is necessary to aid the court in fashioning an appropriate sentence, by helping to determine (1) how a defendant's mental disease or defect may mitigate his or her culpability for the offense conduct; and (2) what type of treatment, if any, the defendant should receive during supervised release. The mental-health recommendation should, therefore, focus on these dual, overlapping issues of culpability and treatment: the role, if any, defendant's mental illness played in his or her charged conduct, and what treatment is recommended for defendant's illness in light of his or her individual characteristics and history.
By considering whether a mental disorder mitigates "culpability," the court is not referring to whether a defendant had a legal defense such as insanity, or whether a defendant's action was not "voluntary" or was committed without the requisite mens rea; rather, the court means whether the condition may provide a mitigating factor that lessens the defendant's blameworthiness relative to a hypothetical mentally healthy defendant. --------
Cooper is facing punishment for mail fraud and bank fraud, and there is reason to believe that her criminal conduct was driven by her drug addiction and possibly other mental disorders. Further, while Cooper's mental health was evaluated in the past, she has never received an in-patient, longitudinal assessment.
18 U.S.C. § 3552(b) authorizes the court to order that the study be done by the Bureau of Prisons upon the finding of a "compelling reason" or where there are no adequate professional resources available in the local community to perform the study. In this case, the court seeks, with the agreement of defense counsel, a comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation of the defendant's mental health, including whether she has any co-occurring mental illnesses in addition to her substance abuse and how, if at all, her history of trauma has affected her behavior in this case. There are no locally available resources that could provide such an evaluation in the jail where Cooper is housed (or in any other local jail for that matter). Such an extended and comprehensive evaluation is simply not feasible given the restrictions on access to prisoners in a county jail environment. Furthermore, releasing Cooper from jail in order to obtain such an evaluation in the community is not an option due to the high risk that she would begin using drugs again. Because there are no adequate professional resources available in the local community, the court need not reach the issue of whether there is a "compelling reason" for the inpatient study.
Because Cooper does not oppose being transported and committed to a Bureau of Prisons facility for the mental-health evaluation, no due-process concerns are raised. See Mosley, 277 F. Supp. 3d at 1300.
***
Accordingly, in order to ensure that defendant Melissa Jacquelyn Cooper is not inappropriately punished for having a disease, to assess accurately her culpability for the offense, and to mete out any necessary rehabilitative treatment, it is ORDERED that the defendant Cooper receive a mental-health evaluation as follows:
(1) The United States Marshal for this district shall immediately remove defendant Melissa Jacquelyn Cooper to the custody of the warden of an appropriate institution as may be designated by the Attorney General, where she is to be committed for the purpose of being observed, examined, and treated by one or more qualified psychiatrists or psychologists at the institution. The statutory time period for the examination shall commence on the day defendant Cooper arrives at the designated institution. The examination shall be conducted in the suitable facility closest to the court, unless impracticable.
(2) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3552(b), the examining psychiatrists or psychologists shall evaluate defendant Cooper's psychological condition for the purposes of sentencing and shall include their findings in a report to be presented to this court.
(a) To assist the court in assessing defendant Cooper's culpability--that is, as a mitigating factor--the study shall discuss defendant Cooper's mental-health history and characteristics, and shall particularly address (i) whether she suffers from a substance-abuse disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and/or other mental disorder(s) and if so, which one(s); (ii) whether a mental disorder (if any) underlies or is related to the substance-abuse disorder, including whether the other mental disorder(s) may be viewed as having caused, led to, or contributed to her substance-abuse disorder; (iii) what role, if any, her substance-abuse disorder and/or other mental disorder(s) played in her commission of the offenses for which she now faces sentencing; (iv) how her substance-abuse disorder and/or other mental disorder(s) impact her ability to refrain from using illegal substances and to comply with court orders; and (v) how her traumatic experiences, including her juvenile rape and cancer diagnosis, affect her mental health and ability to refrain from using illegal substances.
(b) In addition, the study shall also make recommendations as to treatment and supportive services to be provided to defendant Cooper while on supervised release. The study should address, in light of her personal characteristics, history, and circumstances, and her mental health, which treatment modalities, treatment settings, and supportive or other services are likely to be most effective in helping defendant Cooper maintain sobriety, learn to respond to stressors without resorting to illegal activities, and otherwise comply the typical conditions of supervised release; and whether, assuming sincere and good faith efforts on her part, relapse is to be reasonably expected. To the extent any treatment modalities have not worked for defendant Cooper, the study should address whether different modalities or approaches to treatment are recommended.
(3) Finally, the study shall discuss any other matters the Bureau of Prisons believes are pertinent to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
DONE, this the 15th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE