United States v. Linda Gagnon

MEMORANDUM

Because the facts and circumstances of this case are well known to the parties, we repeat them here only as necessary to illuminate our decision.

Appellant Gagnon asserts that the district court had a sua sponte due process obligation to authorize the payment of Criminal Justice Act funds so that Dr. Sporty could be called as a witness in her defense. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e). Because Gagnon made no request for such funds, we review this issue for plain error.

The cases Gagnon cites to support her argument are not on point. Moreover, Dr. Sporty’s capacity testimony would not have been consistent with the picture of her stable mental competence and the nature of the “no fraud” defense developed during the trial. Also, because of questionable factual representations she made to Dr. Sporty, his testimony may well have damaged her case. Accordingly, Gagnon has failed to demonstrate that the absence of Dr. Sporty’s testimony affected her substantial rights, and the district court did not err by declining to allot Criminal Justice Act funds on its own initiative.

Gagnon’s claim of instructional error has no merit, for two reasons. First, counsel agreed to the disputed…