UNITED STATES v. DELGADO (2025)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DISCLOSE PRETRIAL SERVICES REPORT

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the pending request to authorize the disclosure of Defendant Shawn Michael Delgado's Pretrial Services Report to the psychologist evaluating Defendant's mental competency.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court has ordered a psychological examination of Defendant to assess his competency to stand trial.¹ The psychologist examining Defendant (Dr. Miriam Kissin) has asked U.S. Pretrial Services for a copy of Defendant's Pretrial Services Report to facilitate her evaluation.²

As discussed below, U.S. Pretrial Services may not disclose Pretrial Services Reports except under specified circumstances.³ U.S. Pretrial Services therefore informed the Court of Dr. Kissin's request and asked the Court whether it approved the disclosure of Defendant's Report.⁴ In turn, the Court:

(1) informed Defense Counsel and the prosecution of Dr. Kissin's request; and

(2) asked the parties to submit letter briefs analyzing whether it would be lawful to disclose Defendant's Report to Dr. Kissin.

Defense Counsel timely filed a letter brief arguing that the applicable statute does not permit the requested disclosure.⁵ The Government failed to file a letter brief as directed.

II. DISCUSSION

Having considered Defense Counsel's submission as well as the applicable laws and regulations, the Court declines to authorize Pretrial Services to disclose Defendant's Pretrial Services Report to Dr. Kissin.

A. Background on Pretrial Services Reports (and the Confidentiality and Disclosure Thereof)

With exceptions not relevant here, U.S. Pretrial Services has the statutory obligation to “[c]ollect, verify, and report to the [Court], prior to [a criminal defendant's] pretrial release hearing, information pertaining to the pretrial release of” the defendant, “including information relating to any danger that the release of [the defendant] may pose to any other person or the community.”⁶ “[W]here appropriate,” Pretrial Services shall “include a recommendation as to whether such individual should be released or detained and, if release is recommended, recommend appropriate conditions of release.”⁷ The document containing that information and recommendation is called a “Pretrial Services Report.”⁸

Generally speaking, information that U.S. Pretrial Services obtains in the course of performing its duties “shall be used only for the purposes of a bail determination and shall otherwise be confidential.”⁹ The purpose of that confidentiality requirement is to “promote a candid and truthful relationship between a defendant being interviewed” by Pretrial Services “and the interviewing officer.”¹⁰ “The disclosure of pretrial services information for purposes other than determining pretrial release” could “deter a person from cooperating with [a pretrial services] officer,” thereby “depriv[ing] the court of necessary information.”¹¹ Thus, “[u]nless authorized by confidentiality regulations” discussed below “or directed by a judge for good cause shown,” Pretrial Services officers may not “disclose or release pretrial services information, including [a defendant's] file and report.”¹²

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicable statute enumerates five circumstances in which Pretrial Services may disclose a Report.¹³ The statute also commands the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AO”) to promulgate regulations implementing and expanding upon those statutory exceptions to the confidentiality requirement.¹⁴

B. Dr. Kissin Does Not Seek Defendant's Pretrial Services Report for the Purposes of a Bail Determination

Here, Dr. Kissin clearly won't be using Defendant's Pretrial Services Report “for the purposes of a bail determination.”¹⁵ Dr. Kissin instead seeks to use Defendant's Pretrial Services Report for the purposes of facilitating her evaluation of Defendant's competency. The statute therefore forbids Pretrial Services from disclosing Defendant's Pretrial Services Report to Dr. Kissin unless some statutory or regulatory exception to the confidentiality requirement applies.¹⁶

C. No Exception to the Confidentiality Requirement Applies

As the footnote below reflects, most of those exceptions are clearly inapplicable here.¹⁷ Only the two exceptions discussed in the following subsections of this Order have any potential bearing on this case.

1. The “Diagnostic or Treatment Information” Exception

The first is the exception for “Diagnostic or Treatment Information.”¹⁸ Under specified conditions, Pretrial Services may “authorize the disclosure of pretrial services information to a physician, psychologist, psychiatrist, or other health care professional or treatment provider.”¹⁹ However, Pretrial Services may only disclose such information:

(1) “to assist [the healthcare professional] in providing diagnostic information in connection with the pretrial services report or pretrial supervision;” or

(2) “to provide drug or mental health treatment to the defendant.”20

Neither of those potential bases for disclosure applies here. As for the first, the purpose of the requested disclosure isn't to help Dr. Kissin provide diagnostic information “in connection with the pretrial services report or pretrial supervision”²¹ —it's to provide diagnostic information in connection with a competency determination.

As for the second, Dr. Kissin isn't providing “mental health treatment” to Defendant.²² Her current task isn't to treat Defendant;²³ it's to determine whether Defendant is “suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent” to stand trial.²⁴ Thus, the Diagnostic or Treatment Information Exception doesn't apply here.

2. The “Good Cause” Exception

The second is the catch-all “good cause” exception.²⁵ The Court “may order the disclosure of pretrial services information if [it] finds that there is good cause for such disclosure after considering:”

(1) “any promise of confidentiality to the source of the information;”

(2) “any harm that such disclosure might cause to any person;”

(3) “the objective of confidentiality, as stated in the confidentiality regulations;” and

(4) “the purpose of the disclosure.”26

The Court does not find good cause for disclosing Defendant's Pretrial Services Report to Dr. Kissin here. In particular, “the purpose of the [requested] disclosure” does not override the presumption that Pretrial Services Reports will remain confidential. The Court is confident that Dr. Kissin can accurately assess Defendant's competency without Defendant's Pretrial Services Report. Furthermore, having reviewed the specific Report at issue here, the Court perceives no way in which the information therein would improve Dr. Kissin's diagnosis.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to authorize Pretrial Services to disclose Defendant's Pretrial Services Report to Dr. Kissin.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of September 2025.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Am. Order Mental Examination, ECF No. 60, at 3–4.

2.   See infra Section II.A (describing Pretrial Services Reports and the information they contain).

3.   See infra Section II.A.

4.   See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.20.20(a) (“Unless authorized by confidentiality regulations or directed by a judge for good cause shown, [Pretrial Services] officers are not authorized to disclose or release pretrial services information, including the file and report.” (emphasis added)).

5.   See Def.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 62, at 1–2.

6.   18 U.S.C. § 3154(1).

7.   Id.

8.   See, e.g., United States v. Griffith, 385 F.3d 124, 125 n.2 (2d Cir. 2004).

9.   18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1).

10.   Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.10(a).

11.   Id. § 240.10(b).

12.   Id. § 240.20.20(a).

13.   See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(2)(A)–(E).

14.   See id. § 3153(c)(2) (“The Director shall issue regulations establishing the policy for release of information made confidential by paragraph (1) of this subsection. Such regulations shall provide exceptions to the confidentiality requirements under paragraph (1) of this subsection to allow access to such information [by the persons listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(2)(A)–(E)].”).See also Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.20.10(a) (“Under 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(2), the AO Director is authorized to issue regulations governing the release of information made confidential by 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1).”).

15.   Contra 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1).

16.   See id. (“Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, information obtained in the course of performing pretrial services functions in relation to a particular accused shall be used only for the purposes of a bail determination and shall otherwise be confidential.”).

17.   See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.20.30(a) (authorizing disclosure “when a [Pretrial Services] officer's testimony is necessary to resolve a disputed factual issue that is relevant to a release or detention determination when there is no practical way to resolve that issue, other than by reference to the information, file, or record” (emphasis added)).See also id. § 240.20.30(b)(1)(A) (making “[p]retrial services information ․ available to AO staff” for specified purposes (emphasis added)).See also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(2)(A) (authorizing access to pretrial services information “for purposes of research relating to the administration of justice” (emphasis added)).See also, e.g., id. §§ 3153(c)(2)(B) & 3154(4) (authorizing access to pretrial services information “by persons under contract” to “[o]perate ․ facilities for the custody or care of persons” on pretrial release).See also, e.g., id. § 3153(c)(2)(C) (authorizing disclosure to “probation officers for the purpose of compiling presentence reports” (emphases added)).See also, e.g., id. § 3153(c)(2)(D) (authorizing disclosure of “pretrial diversion report[s] to the attorney for the accused and the attorney for the Government” (emphases added)).See also, e.g., Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.20.30(b)(5) (specifying when the presiding judge may “order disclosure of [pretrial services] information to law enforcement agencies” for certain investigative purposes or for the “[p]rotection of the accused, law enforcement personnel, prison officials, or other care providers” (emphases added)).See also id. § 240.20.30(c) (authorizing and requiring Pretrial Services officers to “inform the judge and the U.S. attorney's office of all apparent violations of pretrial release conditions and arrests of persons who are released under supervision” (emphasis added)).See also, e.g., id. § 240.20.30(d) (authorizing and requiring Pretrial Services officers to “inform the judge and the U.S. attorney of any danger that any [defendant] may come to pose to any other person or the community” (emphasis added)).See also id. § 240.20.30(e) (specifying when “[t]he judge may order the disclosure of pretrial services information” that is “exonerating on the issue of guilt” or “germane to the issue of truth in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding involving the individual charged or a third party” (emphases added)).See also id. § 240.20.30(g) (specifying when Pretrial Services “may authorize the disclosure of pretrial services information” “[u]pon the defendant's written request ․ to aid the defendant in ․ obtaining a social services benefit; securing employment; or providing information to a treatment center or health care provider” (emphasis added)).See also id. § 240.20.30(h) (specifying when Pretrial Services “may authorize the disclosure of pretrial services information consisting of ‘status’ information regarding the defendant, such as current residence, telephone number, and current employer”).See also id. § 240.20.30(j) (listing the rare circumstances in which pretrial services information may be “admissible on the issue of guilt in a criminal judicial proceeding”).See also id. § 240.20.30(k) (authorizing Pretrial Services officers to “use pretrial services information obtained in one case to: (1) prepare a pretrial services report in another case; or (2) supervise a defendant in another case”).

18.   See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.20.30(f).

19.   Id. (emphasis added).

20.   Id. (emphases added).

21.   Contra id. § 240.20.30(f)(1) (emphasis added).

22.   Contra id. § 240.20.30(f)(2) (emphasis added).

23.   The Court needn't (and doesn't) take a position on whether the Diagnostic or Treatment Information Exception would apply if a psychiatrist or psychologist sought a defendant's Pretrial Services Report for the purposes of restoring (rather than merely evaluating) the defendant's competency. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) (“If, after the hearing, the court finds ․ that the defendant is ․ incompetent ․ [t]he Attorney General shall hospitalize the defendant for treatment in a suitable facility ․” (emphasis added)).

24.   See id. § 4241(a)–(b).

25.   See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 8, Pt. A, § 240.20.30(i).

26.   Id.

DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE