*1 JONES, Appellant, Arthur America,
UNITED STATES Appellee.
No. 15187. Appeals States Court
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Jan. July
Decided Rehearing Banc Denied
Petition for
En
Dec.
Shannon,
Mr. Charles V.
Washington,
Judge,
Bazelon,
dissented.
Circuit
C.,D. with whom Mr. Richard F. Gener-
elly, Washington,
(both appointed
D. C.
court)
brief,
was on
ap-
pellant.
Carroll,
Atty.,
Mr. Lewis
Asst. U. S.
whom Messrs.
Gasch,
Oliver
U. S.
Atty.,
Belcher,
and Carl W.
Asst. U. S.
brief,
Atty.,
appellee.
Wilbur K.
Before
Miller,
Bazelon
Judges.
Bastían, Circuit
Judge.
MILLER,
K.
Circuit
WILBUR
15, 1958, when Arthur
On
the crimes involved in
committed
*2
counsel,
19,
appeared
already
in-
without
ber
pleaded
under
appeal,1 he was
“My
guilty,
tried,
and announced
for
dictment,
been
but had not
counsel,
insanity.”
29,
His
July
defense will be
grocery
1958.
breaking
a
into
January 26,
employed thereafter,
housebreaking
filed
case,
motion
on
In the
1959,
proceeding
on the new
based
duly made,
entered
District Court
committing
indictment,
for
motion
three-count
1958,
a
30,
September
order
Hospital
commitment
Elizabeths
to St.
Gen-
District
Columbia
Jones to the
days
days
for
an examination
deter-
period
Hospital
of 30
eral
competence to stand
in- mine his mental
then
whether he was
a determination
February
1959,
trial;
6,
was so
mentally incompetent
be
as to
or so
sane
7, 1959,
April
proceedings ordered. Under date of
unable
against
understand
Superintendent
of St. Elizabeths cer-
properly in his
assist
him to
days
tified
the court as follows:
he
thereafter
Some
own defense.
re-
to the
was admitted
“Mr. Jones’
has been studied
15, 1958.
November
there until
mained
intensively since
ad-
the date
his
Ryan,
13,
A.
Dr. James
On November
mission to Saint Elizabeths
Psychiatrist
the Gen-
Chief
Assistant
and he has been examined
several
Hospital,
the District
eral
certified to
qualified psychiatrists attached to
psychiatric
Court
the medical staff of Saint Elizabeths-
“sane, competent
Jones to be
revealed
Hospital as
his mental condition.
participating
capable of
in his own
April 6, 1959,
On
Mr. Jones
ex-
defense.”
amined and the case
in de-
reviewed
housebreaking
tail
a medical
at
staff conference.
This incident
conclude,
case,
We
as the result of our
are
with
we
otherwise
concerned,
important
observation,
examinations and
in the con-
now
appeal,
mentally competent
sideration of this
because the
Arthur Jones is
psychiatric examination then conducted
proceedings
understand
Ryan’s testimony,
the basis of Dr.
against
properly
him
assist in
and to
present case,
the trial of the
that Jones
his own defense.”
was sane when he committed the crimes
April 23, 1959,
On
Jones was tried be
15,
November
1958.
Judge
fore
F. Dickinson Letts for the-
days
Two
after Dr.
certified
had
charged
offenses
in the three-count in
mentally
that Jones was sane and
petent
com-
previous
15,
dictment of the
December
a.
trial,
evening
viz.,
to stand
in the
having
jury
been waived. The facts con
being
while
November
he was
es-
cerning
escape
custody
from
were
patients’ dining
corted from the
area to
cutting
stipulated and the
attend
hospital,
produced
his ward
keys
quick
ant
theft of
and the
razor, vi-
previously concealed blade
ly proved and not denied. True to the-
ciously
in whose
attacked the attendant
appellant’s
prediction,
only
own
de
severely,
custody
was,
him
wounded
plea
was a
fense
that he
insane on.
keys,
surrender
him to
forced
15, 1958,
November
when the three crim
escaped from
which Jones
the aid
with
support,
were committed.
In
acts
minal
recaptured a few
hospital. He was
defense, Jones
introduced
of that
days afterward.
Platkin,
psychiatrist
M.
from-
Mauris
Elizabeths who
observed him
indicted De- St.
he was
offenses
these
For
during
(1)
from his commitment
counts:
as-
in three
cember
February 13, 1959,2
April 7,
dangerous weapon;
(2)
until
sault
he was certified to men
escaping
when
keys;
(3)
stealing the
tally competent
arraignment
stand trial
and was re
custody.
Deeem-
At
lawful
(cid:127)
actually enter St. Elizabeths
committing
He did not
them.
admitted
He
order of commit-
a week after the
until
ment.
upon
Among
the burden
jail.
oth
threw
the Government
the District
moved
proving
part
of
appellant
as a
its case that
things,
said:
Dr. Platkin
er
when
committed
was sane
you, in
Doctor, may
“Q.
I ask
Ac-
crimes of
*3
your
opinion
observation
your
after
cordingly,
introduced
the Government
you
Jones,
tell the
would
Arthur
Ryan,
Dr. James A.
had examined
who
you
came
what conclusion
Court
and
Jones at
Hos-
observed
the General
on or
condition
to his mental
as
during
pital
stay there,
ended
his
v/hich
15,
?
November
about
escaped.
on
November 15 when he
my
and
From
observations
“A.
Ryan
concerning the
testified as follows
studies,
informa-
and from collateral
frequency
duration
of his examina-
me,
available
that ws made
tion
appellant:
tions
suffering
was
I
Mr. Jones
concluded
“ * * * I examined Mr. Jones
psychoneurotic reaction
period
approximately
for a
obsessive-compulsivetype.
minutes
15th
I
on the
of October.
“Q.
you see this
How often did
again
saw him
40 minutes
about
defendant, Doctor?
approximately two weeks after this
exactly
I don’t know
how
“A.
time.
perhaps
I
him
saw
on three
many
I
him a number
times.
saw
period
four other occasions for a
interviews
times
personally
rather extended
perhaps five minutes—three or four
that,
I
and in addition
relatively
him,
brief contacts with
diagnostic confer-
him at our
saw
during
of six weeks
perhaps an hour
ence which lasted
[sic. This was later corrected to 30
a half
or two.
days.], I had occasion
see him on
“Q.
you say
man
this
was
Would
from our
ward
observation room
suffering from
disease in
mental
daily.
almost
perhaps
And
I had
your opinion, Doctor?
more brief contacts with him sev-
eral
making my
Definitely.
other occasions in
“A.
daily
hospital.”
ward rounds in the
“Q.
Doctor,
you say,
that
Would
product
this man’s acts
would be
As a result of these examinations Dr.
of a mental
Ryan
disease?
opinion
formed an
men-
Jones’s
tal condition
reported
which he
my opinion.”
“A. That is
court
on
November
testimony Dr. Platkin
his
Later
housebreaking
Testifying
case.
in this
following col-
on this in
elaborated
case, he said:
loquy :
“Q.
And what was that
Doctor,
“Q.
your opinion,
In
on November
1958?
say
you
you
that
or would
would
product
my opinion
man’s
acts are
“A.
was
It
that Mr.
mind;
disease?
Jones was then of
a mental
sound
capable
understanding
was
you
acts
May
I ask
“A.
charges against him;
and that
referring to?
are
was able
assist
counsel in his own
on No-
committed
“Q. The acts
defense.
15, 1958.
vember
“Q.
your opinion
It
he was
my opinion
Yes,
it is
“A.
of sound mind?
product
his
acts
those
Yes,
“A.
that is correct.
illness.”
mental
“Q.
That was
competent,3
foregoing,
if it
The
1958?
“some evi-
constituted
unquestionably
insanity,'
Yes,
tending
“A.
correct."
to show
dence”
competency
questions
point
appeal,
in his
appellant
its
first
in effect
himself
appear.
will
competence
his
for the
It will be observed
stand trial
prior
referring
of No-
written certificate
lesser offense involved
to his
opinion extended to
that case.”
vember 13. That his
through
escape,
No-
respect
point,,
1. With
to their first
vember
is shown
his statement
rely heavily
counsel
and Cal-
on the Winn
loway
argue
They
eases.4
that because
diagnosis
“My
February 6,
more
order
is based on
commitment of
1959, provided only
than the
I
with Mr.
interviews
mental exam-
Jones;
encompasses
competence
ination
an observa-
to determine Jones’s
during
trial,
concluded,
en-
to stand
tion
it must
behavior
*4
case,
it was in the
tire
of
while he was in
Winn
exami-
time
that the
only.
nation
purpose
ward.”
was
the
for that
.made
assumed, appellant’s
It is
to
not
coun-
Ryan
only
Drs. Platkin and
were the
argue,
sel
such
that under
an order an
appellant’s
witnesses as to the
mental
type
examination of the
essential to a
state on November
1958.As will here-
responsibility
determination of criminal
appear,
inafter
detail;
testified in some
each
will be conducted. The District Court’s
foregoing
excerpts
but the
failure
ap-
to order an examination of
testimony
they
their
will suffice
show
to
pellant’s mental condition as
the
of
time
expressed diametrically opposite opinions
require
crimes is said
reversal.
to
concerning
appellant’s
the
mental condi-
Judge
tion on the
crimes.
the
that
It is true
in the Winn case this
by
testimony
Letts was convinced
the
‘complete
court
thorough’
concluded “that the
Ryan
guilty
Dr.
and found
as
type
required
of examination
charged.
appeals.
He
proper
determination of the issue
responsibility
was never made be-
represented
by
was
in this court
* *
cause it
been ordered
not
appointed by us,
able counsel
who state
appear, however,
It
not
did
that
the
points
appeal
the
as follows:
actually
examination
conducted was an
“1. The court below
fail-
erred in
adequate inquiry
mental
into Winn’s
ing
complete
to order a full and
crime; and,
state at the
in
time of
Appellant
mental examination of
to
information,
the absence of
the
such
responsi-
determine his criminal
court concluded the examination was no
bility at the time of the indicted of-
ordered,
more than had been
and so re-
fenses.
versed.
light
testimony
In the
the
“2.
however,
Obviously,
we could not and
admittedly
Platkin,
quali-
an
concluded,
ap-
would not have so
had it
expert,
Appellant
the
that
was
fied
peared
actually-
that
the examination
recognized
suffering from a
mental
adequate
permit
made was
the forma-
to
at the time
the
disease
indicted
opinion
tion of an
as to Winn’s mental
such
offenses were
offenses
crime,
condition as of the time of the
re-
pros-
product
disease,
the
the
gardless
fact it had not been ex-
proving
burden of
ecution had
pressly ordered. To have done so would
beyond
Ap-
a reasonable doubt that
have
to
been
exalt
over
form
substance
criminally responsible
pellant was
by attributing significance to the order
that time.
examination,
instead of to the
prosecution
not
“3.
did meet
examination itself.
testimony
the.
its burden
prior
Here,
which was based
aon
ex-
case,
as in the Winn
Ap-
he had
only
made
amination
commitment order
pur
was
for pose
pellant
determining
case
another
competence
determine
mental
States, 1959,
App.D.C. 141,
v. United
106
4. Winn
U.S.
proving only think his we of November of sound was that Jones an’s by testimony he contin- accepted case shows day, which was mind on that through November ued his observation judge, because is criticized the trial speaking as 15 and was of that well. in an- made on an examination was based purpose deter- for the sole other opinion The fact Platkin’s that Dr. mentally com- mining whether Jones No- that Jones mental disease on had a petent case.5 trial in that stand vember 15 which caused crimes was grounded began Ry- by on an examination conducted The examination nearly thereafter, three while months determine indeed ordered an was Ryan’s opinion sanity on Novem- competent Dr. mentally whether ber 15 arose from an examination which housebreak- in the earlier trial stand day, included that and the further fact just conduct- ing case, as the examination examining that Dr. Platkin and ob- deter- by ordered Platkin was ed Dr. serving patients while Dr. competence trial stand his mine only 40, may inquiries in- deal well have present seem Their case. judge making substantially in char- fluenced the trial similar have been sanity acter; and, decision far nature had been established. as concerned, both examinations Moreover, although Dr. Platkin un- made them the men who considered qualifiedly said direct opinion expression justifying appellant’s counsel that in his concerning appellant’s condition mental mental disease which he discerned as *6 though even both on November previous produced the November the merely mental com- to determine ordered crimes, he admitted under cross-exami- appellant petence trial. The to stand nation he couldnot determine wheth- logically Plat- Dr. contend that cannot appellant’s attacking the in er acts the opinion an was founded on kin’s examination, escaping attendant and from the Ryan’s was but that Dr. by “deep-seated anxiety”' were caused not. which he characterized aas mental dis- ease, anxiety difference, escape an how- a decided from cus- There was tody testimony and avoid trial ever, Dr. in this: Platkin’s the housebreak- ing which on No- had become had a mental disease imminent Jones because Ryan’s days of Dr. certificate two based an examination 15 was on earlier. vember began nearly unequivocal Dr. Hence Platkin’s months there- three state- which Ryan’s ment that there was a causal after; Dr. conclusion but connection deep-seated anxiety between the sound on November which- was of mind diagnosed as a mental disease on an and based examination which the 15 was October, crimes which began Jones committed in and continued loses its significance.6 day very to the crimes—November said, 6. As we have Dr. Platkin later house- was convicted of the testified: 15, 1958, charge appealed appel- breaking that on November this the and suffering psychoneurotic lant was from a new remanded the case for a We court. obsessive-compulsive type an reaction of of motion the Government be- on trial pre- which caused the did commission of record not show that a the cause psychoneurotic, A said, crimes. into his mental state examination is trial housebreaking deep-seated July who one suffers from a when the of anxiety. testified, however, committed, He had been ordered or was psychotic, Jones was no nor detract course this does not he a made. Of sociopath. cross-examination, significance Ryan’s On of Dr. tes- from the case, timony Platkin testified inter alia as in he dealt with follows: this where Doctor, assuming very person “Q. that a mental condition as of the Jones’ type anxiety crimes, immediately suffered from of some after hav- of ing him for a observed examined days. 30of thirty-day eral was conflict mental ex- there mere fact The insanity scope amination ing in to a limited determi- the issue evidence on against competency nation militate of his mental to stand of November does 13, 1958, judge’s action trial. On validity Dr. James the trial Ryan, Psy- holding sanity A. one of six Assistant Chief had been established Hospital, chiatrists of beyond had the rendered doubt. He a reasonable testimony report responsive lim- comparing to the task inquiry opportunities ited or- witnesses, for ob described the court’s two serving their deciding “Psychiatric appellant, der: examination reveals convincing. sane, competent, most Mr. Jones In to be n criminalcases where capable insanity pleaded, participating is in his own de- conflicting expert fense.” there evidence on is fact, is resolved that issue attendant-— n upon hospital The attack trier of the fact when convinced be subject present which is the in- yond a reasonable doubt. place dictment—-took on November days two after the submission sufficiently We think the record Ryan’s report. In connection with n supports Judge Letts. As the decision indictment, the District Court also Souders,7 we said in Daniels v. “The ordered a mental examination on Febru- (cid:127)credibility within the ary 6, 1959, again limited province of trial court who saw the purpose determining appellant’s com- speak. witnesses and heard them We petency time, to stand trial. This how- say (cid:127)cannot that the record did not war ever, appellant was sent to St. Eliza- rant the inferences and conclusions that Hospital. Superintendent beths ported, Its re- were drawn.” April 7, 1959, appellant Affirmed. mentally competent “is to understand the proceedings against properly him and to Judge assist in his BAZELON, (dissent- own defense.” Circuit ing). present involving case, the assault hospital attendant, Appellant case, was indicted in tried in another *7 April breaking entering July breaking 1959. 29, 1958, (cid:127)on and and enter- ing grocery case was in tried June 1959. a store. In that The de- case the insanity fense Court, was raised 13, 1958, in each District case. October or- Ryan testified at both trials that he dered his District commitment to Gen- degree deep- jail relieve Mm of a certain was incarcerated into a and then was anxiety. put hospital, seated a and further into assum- Now, injury. patient Now, “Q. ing given is the knew or was assumption attempting knowledge make the he was about to be released getting go and did jail succeed in outside of this from the back to the institution; you say trial, would the stand and desire to assume that he waited knowing leave, going opportune hallway he was back to until an moment in a the jail, having anxiety, would click, arise from his a the after assuming heard door and deep-seated anxiety anxiety or from had a his razor hidden on his get away body, guard, from the authorities? assume he threatened the Certainly just razor, “A. the elements of him with struck the threw him plain escape appear guard, to be and he would kill there and I down got said the possible keys guard don’t know whether it would be the from the and left anybody elevator, using right key for me or just else to the disassociate anxiety
(cid:127)open where this neurotic door to the ended elevator. With anxiety facts, and Doctor, you connected with the im- assumed those would predicament began. mediate safety I don’t say physi- the act was a valve of say precisely know I whether can where safety safety coming or a valve cal action types the line exists between these two this neurotic condition he had? feelings.” I tend to think that under “A. would 1952, urge U.S.App.D.C. 298, 300, 90 circumstances the need or the 195 F.2d 7. injury designed 780, such an to cause 252 “nothing alleged would and crime Platkin mind. Dr.
found sound Jones any stronger purposes for the in testified Elizabeths St. virtually concurrent examination than a by to be suf- both that he found cases psychiatry.” specializing a doctor in fering illness and that from mental alleged product crimes were the contention, The short answer testimony in illness. Dr. Platkin’s however, time at which is entering support- breaking case was and sole examination is not the conducted Cody, ed that of Drs. Cushard adequacy element which determines its also of St. Elizabeths.1 Plainly psy- issue at hand.4 indi- of an chiatrist’s mere observation cases was convicted both engaged vidual, in a he is even while hearing appealed them. Before act, in- criminal would not disclose the entering breaking appeal from the formation essential to determine (Appeal 15327), conviction the Gov No. responsibil- mental state issue solely ernment moved to remand the case on the investigation ity. purpose, For that an authority v. United Winn depth Carter some is essential. States, 1959, U.S.App.D.C. 270 106 U.S.App.D.C. States, 1957, 102 326; States, Calloway F.2d v. United why 227, 236, 252 F.2d 617. That is U.S.App.D.C. 106 F.2d 270 said “It is not to be as- we Winn: 334,2 require “complete thor * ** ** * physchiatrist sumed a prepare who ough ‘type of has been ordered to proper determination of the issue of re ” * * competency to a trial con- man’s will sponsibility U.S.App. 106 type duct the of examination is- page 135, page D.C. at at F.2d necessary provide trier the facts granted motion, This court vacated prop- with the information judgment essential for a of conviction and remand responsibil- er determination of criminal ed the case for a new trial.3 ity.” page U.S.App.D.C. at The Government has made simi- page F.2d request present ap- lar for remand in the quarrel majority’s I do not peal with the notwithstanding its concession here holding Calloway that Winn and do not that “the in both cases of Dr. require appears that, reversal where encompasses the same notwithstanding the fact that the Dis diagnosis.” examination and the same It trict Court orders an examination limit reasons that pres- the examination in the competency, ed to trial a more extensive days ent case was had two before the required by animation, decisions, our appears that, although psy 1. Thus it *8 responsibility. to include the issue of chiatrists at St. Elizabeths found Jones competent e., to stand trial —i. to under Moreover, Ryan’s it is clear that Dr. charges against stand the and him to as appellant two interviews with the took they agreed in sist his own defense — place October, in mid and late and that suffering he was that nevertheless sanity he formed his of Jones’ Lyles mental States, 1957, illness. See v. United at that time. Thus for his basis U.S.App.D.C. 22, 103 254 opinion was obtained several be- weeks F.2d certiorari denied 356 U.S. (Dr. Ryan fore the attack. testified in 997, 2 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1067. No. 15327 that his further brief con- did tacts not contribute to his evalua- Notwithstanding its sole reliance tion.) This is not as “concurrent” Calloway and Winn in its motion to re- suggest. the Government seems to The mand, the Government now asserts belat- significance lapse of this time between edly it also had that in mind “other seri- Ryan’s diagnosis upon Dr. and attack questions.” ous Cody’s relates to attendant testi- mony breaking entering and in the case issued, attempt escape appellant our mandate did After the District that to again apparent Court committed to St. until it became to him he therapeutic for a mental would receive no Elizabeths exam- assistance but it ordered at District of Columbia Jail. ination time the ex- 253 I was at a time when performed which “This was is in examination fact trying evalua- establish routine purposes of adequate deter for the is department responsibility.5 tion the social service mining Of criminal every patient also at a time and the substance in are interested course we utterly they finding painfully when were ob form. But it and not the impossible keep up adequate turn- with our of an vious that substance approximately patients lacking over of said here. We psycho month.” “In addition in Winn may neurological logical tests later, And if when he was asked proper] indicated, that determina [a say “would examination of [his] requires responsibility] tion adequate criminal [of superficial?” Mr. Jones was not he re- knowledge expert proper plied : personal his evaluation tory the accused’s say “Yes. I would it was not su- surrounding circumstances and the perficial key in the sense that the Ryan’s opinion crime.” Dr. diagnosis lay whole here in the by such information. buttressed ability to follow certain nuances and Ryan present case in the testified feeling very which I felt were clear- “approximately 45 that he saw Jones for ly this, evident in which I have de- * * * 15th minutes on October scribed, this evaluation whether again approximate- 40 minutes for about really or not he that he had done felt time”; ly two weeks after this something wrong.”6 (Emphasis had “rel- thi-ee or four other occasions he supplied.) ** ”; atively with him contacts brief plainly appears Thus it the ex- * * * “perhaps had more and that he actually amination bring conducted could not Ryan’s brief contacts.” Dr. light the matters which care- we breaking entering (Ap- fully described Carter peal 15327) psycho- reveals that no No. States, 1957, U.S.App.D.C. 227, logical conducted no effort were tests proper F.2d essential con- was made to obtain essential behavioral responsibility. sideration of the issue of information from various institutions to need for such information is not ob- committed, which Jones been such Ryan, viated the fact that Dr. as, Training School, the National Chilli- through of his rounds course Reformatory, Reformatory, eothe Lorton fleeting wards, opportunity for had the and District of Columbia Jail. Nor were glimpses up of Jones sought. Army medical No records alleged assault on November 15. family of his members former em- argues that, although also since Dr. Plat- ployers were interviewed ad- mentally kin testified that Jones was ill persons vised Dr. that such alleged offense, time of the Ryan sought available in this area. Dr. Government had the ground burden establish- explain these omissions on the ing beyond a reasonable doubt that he that: majority goes say reasonable doubt that Jones was not suf- 5. The on to that Dr. fering from mental illness at the time Platkin’s examination was *9 offense, mentally purpose of if he determining Jones’ mental product ill, crime not condition the date of the attack upon illness. attendant. I fail they see how can derive comfort inquiry by 6. The described the italicized fact, assuming to be true. Dr. Ryan’s portion testimony appear? mentally Platkin testified that Jones was have been the focus of his examina- ill and that the acts for which was in- summarizing testimony, In tion. product dicted were the of that illness. key my diagnosis said: “The up, If the Government’s case is to stand past details of is not history, actual appear Ryan’s it must that Dr. examina- go again but I will back to the purposes inquired point you about, tion was for as to beyond which it was whether he showed remorse.” used —to establish illness; suffering from such Ryan’s inadequate of Dr. view testimony is insufficient examination his discharge He therefore that burden. urges Court the District that we direct judgment acquittal rea to enter Douglas insanity. United son of States, 1956, U.S.App.D.C. v. States, - 52; F.2d see Isaac v. United
U.S.App.D.C. -,
This
the interests the administration justice criminal served would be better Danaher, Judge, dissented. Circuit by adopting followed in the course we Calloway, namely, Winn order responsi new trial at which issue of bility could be determined on the basis thorough” “complete examinations illuminating purpose conducted for the
that issue. Accordingly, I from the dissent court’s affirming judgment
action below.
Joseph SCHULTZ, Petitioner, J.
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Gray,
Robert E. Intervenor.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, COMPANY, Respondent. UNION
GRAND Gray, Robert E. Intervenor. Pozefsky, Harry Gloversville, Y., Mr. N. Nos. Appeals of the bar Court York, pro vice, special hac New leave Appeals States Court Court, District of Columbia of Thatcher, with whom Mr. Circuit. Herbert S. Washington, C.,D. was on the Argued Feb. 15,238. brief, petitioner in No. Sept. 15, 1960. Decided Reel, Attorney, Frederick U. Mr. Na- Board, Labor Relations tional whom *10 McDermott, Thomas Messrs. J. Associate Counsel, National Labor Rela- General Board, Mallet-Prevost, and Marcel tions