Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
18-3550•United States of America v. John Axelgard
18-3550Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.07.2020
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-1092
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
John Axelgard
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: July 7, 2020
Filed: July 13, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
The district court1 ordered John Axelgard involuntarily committed based on a
“mental disease or defect.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (authorizing commitment when
1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
releasing a person who suffers from a “mental disease or defect” would “create a
substantial risk of bodily injury . . . or serious damage to property”). On appeal,
Axelgard’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and challenges the factual
findings underlying the court’s commitment decision. Axelgard seeks unconditional
release in a pro se supplemental brief and requests new counsel.
We conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly
erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (stating that a clear-and-convincing-evidence
standard applies in this type of commitment proceeding); United States v. Williams,
299 F.3d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing the standard of review on appeal).
Evidence in the record, including several expert opinions, established that Axelgard
has a mental illness, that his dangerous behavior is related to it, and that he would
likely discontinue treatment if he were released. See United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d
966, 970 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B,
deny Axelgard’s motion for new counsel, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Missouri.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.