United States v. Spann, No. 19-3573 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was committed to the custody of the Attorney General based on a mental disease or defect and a substantial risk of dangerousness. Subsequently, defendant was conditionally released to the community. After the district court revoked his conditional release for violation of several conditions, he appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that 18 U.S.C. 4246(f) does not direct, or even expressly authorize the district court to order a mental health exam in a proceeding to consider revocation of conditional discharge. The court explained that denial of the exam did not deprive defendant of his Fifth Amendment due process rights where he was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the revocation of his conditional release, and he did not avail himself of statutory opportunities to show that he was eligible for discharge despite violating conditions of release.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Gruender, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Commitment. Spann had been committed to the custody of the Attorney General based on a mental disease or defect and a substantial risk of dangerousness; later, he was conditionally released to the community, but he failed to abide by the conditions of his release, and the government moved to revoke his release; the district court did not err in rejecting Spann's argument that a mental exam was required before the court could revoke his conditional release; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4246(f) does not direct, or even expressly authorize the district court to order a mental health exam in a proceeding to consider revocation of conditional discharge; denial of the exam did not deprive Spann of his Fifth Amendment due process rights, as he had a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the revocation and did not avail himself of statutory opportunities to show he was eligible for discharge despite violating conditions of release. [ January 08, 2021 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.