Dallas O. Williams v. United States

requested ade- had instruction. He Appellant, WILLIAMS, Dallas O. charge, quately in matter covered the referred several course which he America, de- or mental disease times to mental “a UNITED STATES Appellee. again “any mental disease fect” defect.” No. appears clearly the learned Thus Appeals United States Court of jury judge Circuit. District of Columbia limited schizophrenia in dementia or 8,1957. Argued Oct. insanity. inquiring juror have could 1, 1957. Decided Nov. portion applicable found in charge question: to his own answer Rehearing In Banc Denied Petition “any mental dis- the all-embracive terms Nov. confinedto ease or defect” are not Moreover, schizophrenia. dementia or subject by the further discussion of the might judge presiding have confused the jurors apparently who understood other language simple used, and run afoul of the Durham

somehow to me the refusal rule. seems silly reality ques- a answer what logically reversible cannot be called

tion

error. say majority further the trial refusing

judge request defense erred in explain connection” as “causal used charge. ample In view of and in- charge already given, he had I structive McLaughlin in de-

think wise clining simple Eng- to define two those self-explanatory are

lish words which easily understood elaboration. without explain attempt them the man-

An majority I ner indicated —which average jurors find am confident would puzzling have served indeed—would jury. confuse the majority I

For these reasons think the complicates complex further problem, particularly

and difficult the sections numbered and 4 will engendered already the confusion add to given rule, Durham hoc in- ad opinions subsequent terpretations in vague by made more court. It is majority say I here. am

what sure judges, who have here-

the District it difficultto understand and found

tofore rule, will now find

apply it even more

difficult. affirm.

I

20 Washington, Foley,

Mr. S. Nestor C., (appointed by Court) D. with this George II, Washing- Rublee, whom Mr. ton, C., D. was on the brief for lant. Lane, Atty., Mr. John D. Asst. U. S. Gasch,

with whom Messrs. Oliver U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Thomas Flan- nery, Attys., S. Asst. U. were on the brief, appellee. Mr. Milton Eisen- berg, Atty., U. Asst. S. at the time record filed, was appearance also entered an appellee. Fahy Washing- Bazelon, Before ton, Judges. Circuit BAZELON, Judge. Circuit having Appellant, jury trial, waived May 4, 1956, on convicted of assault deadly weapon, with a on an indictment returned in November 1949 for a shoot- ing September 26, 1949. It fifth trial and third conviction for that offense. The case is here for the third time.

His first conviction was reversed when the Government confessed error. The second and third trials resulted in mis resulting trials. The conviction from his fourth trial court, was reversed this sitting banc, because the trial court had denied motion for an adjudication competency of his to stand required by Perry v. United States, 1952, 90 F.2d 37. Between his first and second adjudicated trials incom petent and committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital. again adjudicated He was in competent and committed between his third and fourth trials and between his fourth and fifth trials. On February first conviction in counts, appellant was on three years sentenced to two to seven year counts and and one on count 3, all concurrent. The second conviction in December 1953 a sentence of years. present three to nine sen years. tence is one to three He has already been confined for a total years about seven in the course of long prosecution years six —about prejudicial de- accused after year in St. about a good lay. be- off Hospital. With havior, -will sentence Supreme said September 1958. by of served been Haubert, 1905, 198 U.S. 77, Beavers v. trial at the principal defense The 576, 87, 573, 950: 49 L.Ed. S.Ct. Appellant “ insanity. * * under review * right speedy aof The had illness his mental that «claimed necessarily It trial relative. long the 1949 and that before started delays depends with consistent upon The product the illness. of was a crime secures circumstances. It theory that Government’s rights not It does to defendant. mentally the ill at been lant had not jus- rights preclude public of the developed crime, had but time of the tice.” sub- “prison of psychosis” a result as by delay the To occasioned hold that sequent confinement. incompetence stand to accused’s mental (1) grounds appeal are of this always requires trial dismissal of speedy trial denied the Williams was that “rights ignore the indictment would be to required Amendment1 the Sixth hand, justice.” public of other On the prosecution to (2) sustain failed that the prosecution the accused to of resume the sanity. proving his of its burden long delay may after in some circum- prosecution long delay rights beyond of re- Whether the stances violate quires even public justice. of an indictment requirements dismissal To sus- of delay showing right try that the if there is no its accused seven tain to the prejudiced years crime, not be deter- the accused need after the Government the question my (1) here mined things, here.2 must show in view: two delay whether, delay result when such does that there was no more just accused, ordinary prejudice reasonably it is in to attributable the try processes that justice, to states The Government of that the him. prejudice of it for dismissal would have moved accused beyond no serious suffered indictment, con- for were it not its which ensued from the that appellant’s dangerous ordinary delay. My recidi- cern with and inevitable colleagues seems, therefore, question vism.3 It recognized have do not reach the to unjust try an whether the must make the that it is Government question 1. This was raised Government that he was convicted of constitutional robbery 1938; by appropriate attempted of in twice as motion at the outset of manslaugh battery 1934; Though in the trial sault and review. 4936; battery in with also raised ter assault motion before the trial, question 1941; of fourth intent kill in and in the 1942; shooting with intent to kill in before us when the case was here last pistol 1944; appeal in on the conviction assault with a assault in that kill, Therefore, reversing assault with intent fourth trial. that dangerous weapon remanding with a and car conviction and for assault the case dangerous weapon trial, rying a In a new in 1949. wo cannot be understood days any judgment twelve released have made as to whether constitutionally per- to await his second trial such trial was on bail present new offense, ho threatened someone missible under the circumstances. We pistol and was convicted of that with a consider constitutional appeal. before offense. While on bail his fifth time on this first he committed another crime (United 2. See Petition of Provoo States pistol involving a and was convicted of Provoo), D.C.D.Md.1955, 17 F.R.D. a month after the con that crime told one of the viction. Williams court- appointed psychiatrists prosecutor court, who examined 3. The told the spent in 1953 he had opening him “This man has years jail. his 39 worst criminal record violence I ever seen.’- are informed We showing. however, They agree, first but it was not June until delay lunacy it must where the filed the make the second Government delay petition has which led incom- been substantial. Since petency adjudication July 2, all has been substantial and we are agreed admitting speedily failed Instead in- has the Government validity bring- showing, hold make the second first conviction and ing appellant conviction reversed should be for a second trial with- delay, postponed out the case instructions as remanded with Government my part, possible necessity dismiss the For con- indictment. fessing I upon the additional error. reverse contested ground sufficiency appellant’s appeal. failed has of that the Government notice of showing. Appellant ap- to make the first The remarks had handed his notice of peal relating deputy which nature of follow to the the marshal trans- delay the mittal alone. to the clerk are those of the writer of the District Court. deputy The marshal held the notice Delay The Nature the days filing it, of five before so that reach- it day ed the court on the after eleventh seven-year Undeniably the bulk of the ensuing sentence. On the issue of delay bringing appellant to the trial whether there was an effective of notice which resulted in his conviction appeal, the Government contended in the consequence was a of direct or indirect negative February 23, 1951, until on incompetency. his mental The accused’s held the notice effective. Williams v. incompetency necessarily judi- slows the States, U.S.App.D.C. United process. delay cial Such is inevitable. 212, 188 F.2d 41. When the came time By the of the Government’s construction for the to file Government its brief facts, however, appellant’s mental illness appeal, the in which it had not existed time of the crime at the position validity to take a on the of the trial, or even at the time of the first conviction, ap- it moved instead that the pressure of but was on the peal abeyance pending be held in res- imprisonment some time after his appellant’s competency, ap- toration of judicial process conviction. If the could having pellant been declared incom- completed and should have been before petent just the month. It was appellant ill, became his eventual illness April appellant not until after long-delayed prosecu- will not excuse a discharged Hos- St. Elizabeths tion. pital to the and moved for on release Appellant’s 1950 was re- conviction bail, that the made con- Government its versed on the Government’s admission fession of In error. the circumstances it could not sustain “because case, of this I hold cannot there any of total lack on the of instruction delay reasonably was no more than was charged.” the elements of offense the ordinary processes incident of recognition duty prosecution’s The of its justice. is confess error when error is clear Prejudicial Delay prosecution’s commendable. But Effect of lapse confession came Whether or not the Govern years. this, Except more than two unreasonably delay, ment extended the there is no if reason to believe agreed delay we are this case ill was not at the time of the beyond ordinary and that offense, a second trial could not have extraordinary delay resulted in serious completed before he became ill. appellant. prejudice to Exactly began, when illness delayed theory, prosecution is Government’s is not clear. When because prison incapacity mental authorities noticed bizarre the accused’s difficulty appellant’s part determining some behavior stand mentally re some individual’s mental condition at whether sponsible the accused past very is date task.4 crime difficult of the at the time generally proof Passage a task makes for which the accused increased. of time lacks When both financial5 intellectual fact more difficult. way capacity.6 required by as a The facts fact at state, issue is as subtle immeasurably “descrip psychiatric testimony difficulty en are a origin, explanation risk tion de on occasion hanced. must Courts velopment, difficulty proof. But and manifestations increased * * * alleged occurred, be justice requires there how it interest of disease reasonably developed, difficulty avoid and affected no which is ejnotional duty processes minimize of the defendant able. There is a * * difficulty judgment, when Carter v. so that -, -, ultimately as 252 F.2d reached, relied conducted approach examinations to truth the closest psychiatrists capable. That judicial process character must be the duty they as upon well deem sufficient for the rests the accused upon required. If brief upon accused the the facts the Government— jail burden, in the showing are because defendant his the interviews with the making some instance of inadequate purpose,7 defend for the the 1895, States, insanity, United Davis v. ant a mental should committed to 499; 469, 353, 40 L.Ed. 16 U.S. S.Ct. where he can be examined States, 88 U.S. Tatum v. United long enough clinical a conditions for 612; v. App.D.C. 386, Durham 190 F.2d satisfy psychiatrists. If time to States, 1954, 94 United psychiatrists require more informa 228, 214 45 A.L.R.2d background tion about the defendant’s Douglas 99 U.S. they history than can obtain 52; upon App.D.C. 232, 239 F.2d investigation him, conducted an should be burden, it has Government because If there to obtain such information.8 showing of some once there has been accuracy establishing beyond in insanity, a rea is reason doubt the not crime was supplied by sonable doubt that or the defendant formation product Ibid. of mental illness. family friends, the information or investigators.9 If should be checked psychiatric preparation of the help required prove physical determine the an tests can evidence connection, dissenting Baldi, See, 4. See in this Smith v. ex rel. United States Biggs (dis- Cir., in United of Chief 192 F.2d 565-566 Baldi, supra Judge Biggs). senting opinion rel. note ex Smith v. States Chief 4. invariably true in these is almost 5. As pauper. cases, appellant Hospital ais St. Elizabeths 8. Dr. Cruvant of third trial testified at that appel- that concedes The Government not be able to ascertain Wil- he would intellect, tests at measured lant’s merely by examining liams’ 1949 condition him, Hospital, is no better St. require information from but would at D. taken O. Earlier tests “dull.” background reliable sources Hospital indicated he had that General behavior. a moron. trial, 9. Dr. Gordon testified at the last Cavanaugh testified at Drs. Groh he had learned from Williams’ that trial, inter- third Williams’ history long had a that Williams sister grossly psychotic, view, he was then that epileptic said, grand seizures. He mal they tell either how could not but further, information “if this is at all ill or what likelihood of had been he valid,” be able to be more was, they recovery were unless there condition. about Williams’ definite adequate opportunity given exam- an appear effort made does observation. ination the information ascertain whether “valid.” illness, condition, existence or such character of but court allowed tests should objection. be made.10 over the The wit- Indigent replied ness questionable of Williams' because defendants of “confusion,” impossible capacity obviously “it posi- are in no ill- to estimate the inquiries duration of this tion to conduct these and what- ness.” When prove necessary. Williams was ever others court-appointed Their time, trial for the third given the doctors’ tes- attorneys no are timony about his 1949 condition purpose. funds for the If the relevant concededly too much relevant. presented court, But facts are to be therefore, already passed time had the testi- ordinarily it must be as a mony un- to be useful. Dr. Perretti was inquiries result the Gov- instituted very available and Dr. little Gilbert If, ernment. because the Government early recollection of his examinations burden, proper fails to sustain its a case only what defendant. He testified is left to be decided on less than had been recorded in about those files possible psychiatric evidence, best inadequacy examinations and he said the point evidence not “to deter- the examinations had been prosecution.11 in favor of the ** * enough to mine was he sick bar, In the case at the Government not enough hospital, be in a or was he well any steps failed to take to ascertain jail.” to remain in facts which would determine Clutching upon way establishing lant’s mental condition as it bore for some guilt every innocence, insanity de- but resisted defense at that third attempt produce fense those facts. Williams’ counsel filed motions psychiatrists appointment psychiatrists to examine Wil- conduct to liams after the date of the crime were new examinations to his con- determine reports crime; Drs. Perretti and (2) Gilbert whose dition at time of the leave employ psychiatrists led the Government to institute the to of his own choice lunacy proceeding 28, expense Government; on June 1951. At at the hearing July 2, 1951, on deposition Williams’ leave to take the of Dr. sought counsel to obtain from Dr. Gilbert who Perretti had examined Williams opinion statement Wil- “in 1950 and to what 1951 at various but times September is, present time, liams’ condition had incapacitated been in at the objected hospital.” of 1949. But the Government On the Government’s lunacy designed inquest opposition that the the second and motions third only determine of mind Williams’ state were denied and the first motion granted Court, he “as comes before and I at this first denied but then in severe- ought ly inquire think counsel don't into limited form. The court ordered that whether not he was insane Drs. Robert H. at the Groh and John C. Cavanaugh jail committed a ob- crime.” The examine Willaims at jection objec- any January February was sustained. A similar “at time on 31 or prevented 1st, eliciting tion the defense from in order to determine opinion. Perretti’s September Dr. theAt second mental condition as of lunacy inquest, April 28, 1953, upon completion on and that of said again objected Government when de- examinations naugh Doctors Groh and Cava- sought report fense Perretti Dr. shall the Court September Monday, February Williams’ about 1949 mental 1953.” The doc- generally 10. Dr. Gordon testified that “it is mitted be knew of no electroence- epilepsy phalographie having believed that result of is the tests made on some, although clearly appear not or- definable Williams. It does not fi-om the ganic Surely, lesion in the brain. there record that such a test was made.- diagnosed what can be dis- cerebral rhythmia, proven by States, 1957, and that can be elec- Blunt v. 11. See 100 troencephalography, U.S.App.D.C. 266, all if it there.” is-at note cross-examination, ad- Dr. Gordon note On epileptic. Government on been an Yet the Williams tors examined investigate claim, only February 1, not Sunday, failed to their examina but but, light purpose. took Dr. of its cross-examination tion was futile They halluci Gordon to task for the limited so extent found then Williams accepted delusionary which he claim. Dr. nated, and disoriented Gordon, connection, supply facts in the same testi- (cid:127)he was unable to they electroencephalographic background fied tests whether, disclose as a result of the duration need to determine necessary epilepsy, they Williams had a “cerebral dis- lacked the illness. Since rhythmia.” Government, cross- facts, no could state the doctors examination, Sep made the doctor admit condition about Williams’ mental knew, so far as he physical ex no such test had tember So far as been made. The Government itself never concerned, made Dr. Groh amination is performed had such a test on Williams. one, a limited “because of our limited opportunity.” Cavanaugh time and Dr. produced proper That the evidence judge long stated that how Williams adequate investigation of the facts require had been ill would more examina relating to the accused’s mental condi tion and observation made un may prove tion at the time of the crime der the court’s order. This one examina mentally responsible that he was not tion, by time, limited as it was circum not, assume, will influence the Gov scribed as it was the absence of pursuit ernment in its of the facts— facilities, clinical inhibited as and, course, it should our not. Under background total lack of informa mentally jurisprudence, respon criminal tion, was, appears so far as from the prison; sible law breakers are sent prosecu repeated records of this mentally responsible those who are not tion, examination ever made of hospitals. are sent to To that end the Williams for the possible District Code makes a verdict of his 1949 mental condition.12 guilty by insanity, reason of directs that under such a verdict Although the knew Government hospital defendant is be to confined in a guilt Williams’ or innocence would turn mentally for the" ill until it is determined sanity the issue of his 1949 and * * * sanity that he “has recovered his although by it was informed one at least will [and] not in the reasonable future (cid:127)of the St. Elizabeths doctors that dangerous be to himself or others.” determination of his 1949 condition D.C.Code, 24-301(c), (d) (e), and § require would reliable data his about by August 9, 1955, amended the act of background,13 it made ob- no effort to policies 69 Stat. ch. Two 1.§ any tain verify such data or to the data underly supplied the distinction in treatment be Williams himself or his family. responsible appellant tween the and the example, For non- claimed epilepsy wrong have responsible: and Dr. Gordon testified is It both and at punish the last trial where sister foolish to there is no blame appellant punishment had informed him that and where cannot correct. opening 12. At of the fourth Bernard A. Cruvant of Eliza- Dr. St. again requested Hospital, testifying defense the court to or- at beths the third psychiatric February analogized 2, 1953, der a examination to deter- trial past problem mine Williams’ 1949 mental of condition. defendant’s objected problem The Government state to the “some new of deter- psychiatrist mining testamentary capacity could [not] come into presume give required, case new and an has died. What testator September said, as to his mental condition in information from he unbiased of 1949” and [not] “it would serve individual’s sources behavior good purpose.” The examination in at the time “observations background among impartial ordered. from ” persons disinterested justifiable security community’s be concern with Government’s (2) The recidivism, by hospitalization under his criminal commitment protected better might by imprison appellant to a mental D.C.Code, than 24-301 § well most Douglas wisest ment. disposition In desirable of this case. U.S.App.D.C. 232, 240 note previous his to St. violent three commitments 60 note 12. If Williams’ appellant Hospital, received disorder sprang from in 1949 act only medical extent nec- treatment indeed, illness —if, he has a mental cognitive essary powers likely other to restore the he will commit it makes served, thought required com- to be sentence acts when his violent remedy. petency. under committed If he were imprisonment Not is not a D.C.Code, acquittal him, but 24-301 after wrong imprison § would it be presumably insanity, reason of he would com imprisonment would not secure any therapy munity against receive more repetitions of his viol Release commitments. Hospitalization, ence.14 on the other commitment, requiring a determina- such hand,, would serve the dual safety, provide as- some giving tion of would required him the treatment therapy that, of the surance as a result keeping illness and him confined him, not be administered he until it would be safe to him.15 release - pursue likely future great the reasonable Society’s proper interest in the present his former violent course. disposition of such cases would dis- be disposition case sets Government, prosecuting served if the months before lant free some adopted passivity them, an attitude of go completed we sentence free if he production resistance evi open to the hold to be invalid. dence. however, proceed for Government, light foregoing, In the hold D.C.Code, 21- § civil commitment speedy was denied a trial. with Williams if considers reverse the conviction and remand We rights large state, “the at the case to the District for dis- property persons will missal of the indictment. public preservation jeopardized or the peace imperiled commission and the Appellant also contends that liis con- probable.” crime rendered should be reversed viction because overwhelmingly establishes in- evidence Reversed remanded with instruc- sanity the time of crime. Since to dismiss the tions indictment. conviction is reversed on a different FAHY, (separately ground, Circuit reach this we do not contention. concurring). may note, however, judg- if a We insanity acquittal reason of ment agreement general I am in with the appellant entered, com- be were analysis Judge the case made in a mental under D.C. mitted to opinion and Bazelon’s concur in reversal 24-301, supra, Code, be until it should § with directions to dismiss the indict- that he would not “in determined ground appellant on the ment did dangerous him- future be reasonable speedy have the to which Considering pattern others.” self or under entitled the Sixth Amend- characterizing appellant’s delays be- preceded violence ment. The seriously his adolescence and the trial were substantial since last havior sentence, Williams none of tbe three occasions when the On 14. Under hospital discharged by September Mm was he certified released be longer fully and no as gerous. recovered dan- States, Durham v. United See confinements St. 15. AVilliams’ solely 1956, U.S.App.D.C. Hospital 237 F.2d were for the Elizabeths purpose restoring Lyles v. United sufficient mental — permit —, competency —. Mm tried. prejudicial And defense. to by pointed Bazelon out of about a total

has been confined years, more seven of them six Hospital, year than a in St. though original sentence years.

from two to seven appropriate suggestion looking proceedings

authorities consider D.C.

toward civil commitment Code, promise of a dis- holds 21-326 § problem

position conducive well as of public as

the interest of the appellant. White, Houston, Tex., A. Mr. A. pro Supreme Texas, bar vice, by Court, special hac leave CORPORATION, Petitioner, TEXAS GAS Washington, Miller, Jr., Mr. John T. D. C., petitioner. COMMISSION, FEDERAL POWER Attorney, Knight, Mr. C. Fed- Louis Respondent. Commission, eral Power with whom No. Gatchell, Messrs. Willard W. General Counsel, Commission, Appeals Court of States Federal Power District of Columbia Wahrenbrock, Circuit. Solicitor, Howard E. Fed- Commission, on the Power were eral Argued Oct. 1957. respondent. brief, for 7, 1957. DecidedNov. Washing- Miller, Before K. Wilbur Judges. Danaher, ton Circuit Judge. MILLER, WILBUR K. Circuit By the terms of a between contract April 30, 1953, them dated Texas Gas agreed Corporation and deliver sell Corporation Eastern Transmission Texas specified gas quantities over a of natural agreed years. term It was there- subject conditions certain gas here, paid should material following per rates: Mcf 12.50 delivery date of initial from the No- 1953; from November vember 12.70 during to November period thereafter until annual No- each 1, 1967, price per Mcf 2 mills vember larger prevailed than that beginning period; Novem- 15.50

Case Details

Case Name: Dallas O. Williams v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Nov 22, 1957

Citation: 250 F.2d 19

Docket Number: 13626_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.