Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Chun

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 11, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH CHUN, Defendant.

          ORDER

          VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Government request to order the defense to produce raw data on competency testing. [ECF No. 70 and 71]

         The Court declines the request.

         Defendant Dr. Kenneth Chun (“Chun”) is charged with four counts of health care fraud and six counts of distribution of a controlled substance. The Indictment has been pending since 2017.

         Chun has been evaluated several times for competency to stand trial: at FCI Butner, by his own health care professionals; by a psychologist appointed by the Court.

         More recently, at the request of the Government, the Court entered an order allowing for examination of Chun by a team of professionals assembled locally by the Government.

         In this latest order, the Court required that the “[e]valuation and examination may include cognitive testing and may involve active collaboration between the disciplines of psychology, neuropsychology, and forensic psychology.” [ECF No. 67 at PageID.641] The Government expert is required to prepare a report.

         The Government selected Dr. Robert Denney, a board certified clinical neuropsychologist and forensic psychologist. Dr. Denney conducted an in-person competency evaluation on May 21, 2019.

         In its papers to the Court, the Government says

“The Defendant's test results were anomalous in that the substance of his answers to questions varied from question to question and overall his erratic pattern of answering questions was inconsistent with any of the diagnoses set forth by other practitioners in this case. His pattern of answering questions and other materials reviewed by Dr. Denney, including a report of the Defendant's EEG, raised a concern that the Defendant was potentially malingering.” [ECF No. 70 at PageID.658]

         Based on these test results, the Government says that Dr. Denney requires raw data of prior testing conducted by defense experts and the court appointed expert. The Government requested the data; the experts have declined to produce it.

         Now, the Government seeks a court order for the production of raw data or, in the alternative, an adverse inference if the experts continue to refuse to provide the data to Dr. Denney.

         To support its request, the Government says that Dr. Denney has concerns that Chun may be malingering. He believes that a review of the prior test data involving Chun would be useful in reaching a final conclusion about Chun's competency.

         The defense opposes the request. It says the malingering accusation is unwarranted. It says “the Government's new position is inconsistent with every expert in the past, including its own expert, Dr. Chavez, and the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.