Donald Ragsdale v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital

allegation claim. essence view, upon extent my solely, in bears damages entitled

seek.12 appellant is be- gravely fear that right.

ing substantive valid denied RAGSDALE, Appellant, Donald Superintendent, OVERHOLSER, Winfred Appellee. Hospital, Elizabeths No. 15437. Appeals Court United States of Columbia Circuit. District Argued 1960. Feb. 23, 1960. June Decided Rehearing Banc Denied En Petition Sept. 1960. grant Judge Bazelon would Circuit petition. App.D.C. Lane, ex rel. Palmer v. United States Cf. Harry Alexander, Mr. S. T. U. Asst.

Atty., Gasch, with whom Messrs. Oliver Belcher, Atty., U. S. Asst. and Carl W. Atty., brief, appel- U. S. were for on the lee. Washington, Adler, Jr.,

Mr. Howard C.,D. filed brief on behalf of Ameri- Union, can Civil Liberties cu- as amicus riae. Reed, retired,*

Before Mr. Justice and Judges. Fahy Circuit Burger,

BURGER, Judge. Circuit expense Appeal at with Government appointed

court counsel allowed order of the Court to review District dismissing appellant’s that court’s action petition corpus. for writ Pe- titioner has been Eliza- confined Hospital beths D.C.Code 1960). (Supp. VIII September 17, 1957, appellant, On charged robbery, with was found not guilty by insanity. reason of The testi- mony eyewitnesses ap- of three showed accomplice pellant an had committed guns. robbery, Appellant’s armed with defense was threefold: that he was time; somewhere else at the that he was intoxicated; he insane. The he had a evidence that mental disease go jury was sufficient and the Court District submitted the ease on insanity and both tory intoxication. The his- significant mental aberration goes years including back some irration- serving al while conduct the armed Halleck, Mr. Charles W. Washington, history forces from 1952 A (appointed by C.D. Court), District irrational violence toward himself and appellant. shown.1 others was * Sitting designation pursuant sixty to Sec. 294 October of was sentenced to (a), days, Title 28 nothing U.S.C. knew said he Following occurrence. Korea he was ar- paratroopers 1. When on leave from the disorderly conduct, rested of which he talking with friends has no recollection. suddenly up flights he ran two Appellant periodically steps “1,000, committed other 2,000, 3,000, counted others, acts of violence to self and jumped ground. boom” to the In 1955 coupled by periods asleep sentry were duty followed fell imprisoned year. Following of amnesia. On one occasion discharge appellant jumped job. had drank ammonia. one -On another he He job got held being for six months until he out anof automobile driven for- by breaking ty into trouble a window in an miles Both incidents hour. ro- but he was wife and pellant’s today,” about 10 the record indicates rest abeths vidual mony writ of habeas ground al appellant condition and that he that he has some capacity as Cushard to sonality disturbance, ease. At the 1959 disturbance is a mental behavior odds with the official abeths tion.” He testified that disorder but On November At of employers without as question that time was would professional Hospital. Hospital privileges, a he to said trial family.3 months.2 fugitive was hearing and lived adjust answered: that he not taken give as to the his then without mental dis- corpus, that such a some diagnosis himself appellant fled St. issued Appellant’s own insight opinion,4 During he had hearing, warrant position at home showing abnormal worked into anti-social support this was his indi- he he “In diagnosis “sociopathic per- disease. At Dr. William six weeks to normal petition had while testified into this shown of my opinion, custody personality of St. for no with appellant to belief response his own interval allowed “as of sever testi reac- some Eliz later Eliz- life. for ap- his ar G. at psychiatrist.6 ciopathic personality disturbance, Your pital assignment. This know his insanity.” that to ity, Asked that no known beas that his conclusions were were not examined patient, Dr. Cushard answered “No treatment of correct was feel that oh a pellant ^[*] social * * 5 over a order] 1957, appellant Dr. Platkin testified that in change basis of that condition since he “about the report Honor, “making reaction” and that his year, is to was diagnosis that’s ” same in there has been any type but of Dr. Dr. person’s try hearing. appellant appellant’s condition and court some drugs was still pointed out very to ato Cushard diagnosis by Platkin, change his has —this is of suffering kind of progress” difficult basic change as at were effective was on his He personality witness he case, based others, any also thought also his another staff personality.” treatment thing in his hos- service September change from “so- reason diagnosis personal- “in with conceded said testified still he I don’t to part” anti- view [dis- they had ha- ap- for do, on of improves appellant quired hospitalization, person could “I re- don’t think a give personality. and dan- from his reason for his bizarre covers This no type personality. Many sociopaths, gerous of acts. any type types, personal- other other of appears explanation 2. No record in the ity, may adjust any given length of delay. is, concerning long this It peo- words, In I think time. these Hospital duty course, the absolute they ple are able to control their acts if escape Superintendent report an as necessary effort. But make the Similarly, soon it is it is known. personality indicate his doesn’t Attorney duty of the United States changed.” apprehend fugitive police report It Dr. Platkin’s 6. was any undertaking make once without entry August showed an dated dangerous. of whether he evaluation (ten appre days before was period wife, 3. In and his also a this he hended) in which he recorded that a Hospital, Elizabeths one month old when former inmate had a child appellant’s woman who said wife she who telephone appel said called lant had Ragsdale apprehended and returned knife, threatened her custody. him, left that she had called she had appre police ask that profes- was, course, 4. the individual hospital. Dr. and returned to the hended witness, opinion the of- sional way had that he Platkin said or the staff ficial views knowing the caller was in fact Mrs. Psychiatric Asso- of the American views Ragsdale, Ragsdale. Barbara wife Mrs. ciation, a witness which Dr. Oushard as appellant, she testified did not call express. was bound to phone on the and that her Dr. Platkin experienced difficulties” point had “no 5. Pressed later husband on this the witness large living at while at home. testified: history violence. On one occa- July 1958, sion in expert when relative non- value of ground privileges expert afforded beths, at St. Eliza- also must govern leave, departed without re- con the District Court is engaged sidering turned and acts which violent release See 24-301. led to States, 1956, confinement in maximum se- Carter v. United curity quarters. App.D.C. 227, 252 against background It was of evi- We first dealt with this in Overholser dence Leach, 1958, U.S.App.D.C. 289, the District dismissed v. Court 103 appellant’s petition 291, 667, 669, denied, for a of habeas 257 writ certiorari conditionally 1959, and 1013, declined 1152, release 359 U.S. 79 3 S.Ct. or 1038, otherwise. L.Ed.2d where a unanimous court person seeking held that the release has Appellant (1) the evi- contends showing the “burden of refusal that the support the District dence does not superintendent of the to issue the statu (2) the statute Court’s action and tory arbitrary capri certificate was or applied appellant because it cannot be to Perhaps important cious.” more in its “solely cannot be said he was by bearing on the instant case insanity” (3) ap- that if reason court’s discussion of the civil commit plicable him, an uncon- to 24-301 is procedures, urges ment because stitutional denial of only appropriate as the way can requires mandatory commitment it held; there we said: judicial without an or affirmative subject is determination that the either 24- “The test this statute [§ dangerous. insane or particular in whether a 301] dividual, engaged ordinary pursuits life, is committable to a institution under the law We deal first with the contention governing civil commitments. Cf. appel the evidence established Williams, 1958, Overholser v. dangerous potentially lant was not or U.S.App.D.C. 248, 252 F.2d 629. dangerous to himself or and hence others apply Those laws do here. This petition. was entitled relief under his to applies exceptional statute to an circumstances, Certain evidence people people class of who have — suggest believed, was to be by law, committed acts forbidden symptoms ed that he had been free from ;who have obtained verdicts ‘not reports for 10 months. The his em guilty by insanity,’ reason of ployment record and his conduct de who have been committed to a men wife, emphasized scribed are pursuant tal institution to the Code. showing appellant proper subject abe People category in that are treated for at least conditional release. But the Congress ain diiferent fashion undisputed ap evidence is persons from who have somewhat suffering pellant presently from what conditions, similar mental but who experts “psychopathic both described as have offenses ob or personality disorder,” and that he is guilty by tained verdicts of not rea dangerous. * * * insanity son of There mere The recital of the evidence dem- must be such abnor- freedom from onstrates that the District Court mal mental made condition as would make permissible expert' dangerous choice between individual evi- to himself dence that community or in the reasona- including testimony bly evidence (Footnotes foreseeable future. laymen tending suggest omitted.)” he was not. The pages standards established this court pages 257 F.2d at Douglas States, 1956, v. United (Emphasis added.) 669-670. exceptional himself class.” confine one “an purpose of the prepon In a “close” case lan even its where provision disclosed peti history. to derance favors legislative guage Prior tioner, doubt, doubt ex States, if reasonable Durham v. United App.D.C. danger public ists about to the A.L.R.2d or discretionary patient, cannot risk be resolved so toas commitment public individual. judge a verdict the trial patient may materially improved guilty by return have reason of appear good prospect case be a the Durham ed or directed. After restoration as a useful member Congress soci promptly amended statute ety; but if an all “abnormal mental condi to make commitment potentially dangerous, tion” renders punitive him con penal No such cases. procedure. reasonable medical doubts siderations enter into judicial doubts protect purposes: (1) are be resolved in fa two public vor of the subject’s safety. public subject; (2) and in favor afford and the Russell, place Overholser procedure and v. a rehabilitate and subject whom restore the as to the stand — U.S.App.D.C. —, 283 F.2d 195. society the of law ards our and rules 2. permit punishment or do not accounta Appellant 24-301 contends that § bility. authorizes commitment quite possible, as It is solely on a is where defendant person acquitted argues, a then that and ground that at the he was insane the charge 24-301 on committed under calling § charg the time of commission act a maximum sentence say we cannot ed and that this record months be in St. Elizabeths confined ground insanity was sole the relied two, years five or even be ten —or argues by jury. that reasonable He yond Nothing contemplated that. is less sanity an doubts about his rather than by nothing ful the statute and less will finding insanity required affirmative protective pur fill the and rehabilitative acquit jury charge, under the cit poses Compare of the statute. Green ing States, 1951, Tatum v. United 1956, States, wood v. United 350 U.S. App.D.C. 190 F.2d 612. The verdict 76 S.Ct. L.Ed. 412. compelled, says, rendered was if the prove beyond important Government secondary, failed fac A doubt reasonable application of this is statute in the tor though sane, preponderance even proof. That and standard the burden the Government’s evidence showed he person re is on the burden argued sane. plain in v. made Overholser lease we lawfully cannot custody be confined in supra. Leach, The standard acquittal hearing post absent a expressly and statute defined present which the trial issue of pri Leach. The only partially defined specifically separately protection re purpose mary statute — solved. subject sug public and for for the — peti gests burden on the that the once our decision in Orencia Over While Congress to be intended U.S.App.D.C. 285, tioner holser, in terms of heavy. The statute deals statutory 763, preceded the amend and calls for both future” “foreseeable made commitment manda ment which tory certificate— evaluation—the is con case § finding, judicial evaluation—the trolling A issue. on this subject be released. can sanity before of the accused about doubt acquittal preponder- required an authorized hos aof the standard Would satisfy purposes pital Tatum confinement before case evidence ance of Congress? Tatum did no more much as after. objectives think We quality quantum made reduce than person so A not. findings competence completed put in medical in the can be mental evidence possible shortest time. issue. say it be reasonable Would psychiatrists trying to de while are urged ground re The third termine whether defendant is or is by which procedure versal is that if appellant large dangerous, ?7 he should be at compliance confined was premature opportunity A release without is unconstitu statute 24-301 § for, appraisal the medical could lead to deprivation it commands since tional the commission of criminal acts. new process that it liberty without statutory procedure Even a the kind hearing, require a does afford appellant urges inevitably require would judicial trial, or affirmative period detention for some of observation pres present disease there is a and examination. Since confining him. a basis ent develop step step, must and since the resolv must attack constitutional person may ju confined under rational connec there is a on whether ed dicially legality test the of his confine as to the known between tion corpus,8 say habeas we cannot appellant’s and the stat mental disease Congress that the means selected vio provision. commitment ute’s appellant’s rights. late constitutional present and connection think that We hearing in this context is a that it is rational. proceeding de novo to examine into the existing petitioner’s then mental condi guilty by Inherent in verdict ; hearing put tion at such he is free important ele- are two reason ments, (a) evidence, lay expert, both to demon fact the that defendant did point strate that he has recoverd to the charged, (b) act the criminal commit dangerous where he will be to himself for rational basis there exists some that or others. from suffered the defendant belief that the of which a mental disease defect hearing The fullness of the which Congress product. did act is criminal person may the committed invoke at hearing provide fol- for not see fit to emphasized by will is the while fact lowing immediately upon the verdict the calls for a the statute certificate then mental defendant’s determine the hospital superintendent in conclusion, this does not mean that the form of a the Congress Perhaps into took condition. inescapable the fact such account accept court must the naked conclusion meaningless hearing until be would Indeed, of the certificate. certifi the experts had a medical trained supported reports cate is not opportunity and examine containing satisfy to observe per which recitals findings. report Judge Hence subject their suade the District that the medical gap between verdict time conclusion correct, some embraced in the certificate is appraisal ex- may disregard of the defendant’s then the isting the certificate be condition is unavoidable If ed. the conclusion embraced in the provide any regarded would which scheme under adequate certificate were to be ing, as bind safeguards. problem Congress The would have had no reason during lapse any de- provide judicial that time whether to ing for action follow large at unattend- particularly should fendant certificate. This is respect phase should be whether he ed true with to that of the observation, examination and potential which where certificate deals with the People 1943, Dubina, 894; Overholser, 304 Mich. v. 7. See v. Lewis 99, 363, 319 denied 8 certiorari App.D.C. 592; N.W.2d 274 F.2d Overholser 766, 63 87 L.Ed. 1716. S.Ct. U.S. Leach, 1958, U.S.App.D.C. 289, 667; Overholser, Stewart v. example, See, Tatem v. United for U.S.App.D.C. 230, States, 1960, 186 F.2d 339. appellant’s mental condi- of the assumed “danger,” heart Plainly led tion has him be held blameless and or release. for retention test punishment judicial free from an act other- for a determi- calls the statute subject release, wise eligibility aided— to criminal sanctions. nation by expert medical but not testimony. Leach, supra, controlled— In Overholser v. we held burden to establish eligibility for release under 24-301 is hospital superintendent’s Since the petitioner. reasons, This violates con- supported must be certificate guarantee stitutional for it has no government rela- petitioner or the either tionship presumption to the of innocence superintendent or cross-examine “guilt” neither since nor concerning “innocence” expert witnesses proceeding involved utory objectives this opin- and the stat- predicates conclusions and punishment are not concerning express they ions protection and rehabilitation. It has recovery sanity, subject’s and the held, example, been that a state stat- presence potential or absence places ute which on the defendant the foreseeable future. proving affirmative burden of insanity as slight examination takes a defense generally does not “violate ac- why to see practical realities cepted concepts of basic standards of effect petitioner a writ to Aso. justice.”9 majority of the courts Eliz- in St. confinement from his release which have considered the constitution- kept Hospital properly be cannot abeths ality statutory schemes like that of § indefinitely the bare in confinement opinion, have held that due certificate conclusion or violated.10 petitioner superintendent The order of the District Court dis- will be recovered and missing petition for a writ of habeas petitioner is entitled if released. discharging the writ is proc- the familiar that conclusion test adversary proceedings. The Affirmed. esses course, govern- corollary, is that the of FAHY, Judge (concurring). Circuit similarly to entitled test the ment is subject a I conclusion that has re- concur in affirmance of the order of dangerous. discharging that he the District Court in covered and the corpus. of 24-301, writ Section public the in- In these circumstances properly body construed in the of of law sought protected outweigh terests to be part, which it is a I think is constitu- right appellant’s claimed be set free to tional, failed to a make instant a verdict is returned. the is showing factual which him entitled to hardly asking require too much to a opinion release. But the of the court punish- is from defendant who absolved goes further than I think necessary, by society of his because agree entirely I and do not with it. time the condition at the of criminal act Douglas not accept I had considered on v. some restraint lib- Unit- should erty States, U.S.App.D.C. 232, 99 239 confinement in a ed 52, lay weight period required down a of to rule relative such as is to determine non-expert expert and of evidence on whether he has recovered and whether sanity, very of unless in issue a he will be if released. indirect This by reaching implicit way expressed a conclusion in the idea Over- overwhelmingly pointed so evidence insanity holser v. Leach that such a to defendant particular part “exceptional in the case as to of an class.” leave Not sanity beyond significance, of although by some room a without a controlling factor, doubt. no means reasonable the fact Oregon, 1952, 9. Leland 10. See 145 of cases collected at A.L.R. State 343 790, 799, 1002, 1008, U.S. 72 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1302. necessity opinion to men- present Over- refers treatment The acquittal tal Leach, condition which led to holser v. 291, insanity. necessity 667, 669, denied reason of certiorari And this presupposes L.Ed.2d in turn that 359 U.S. 1038, S.Ct. treatment seeking holding person treatment will that the be accorded. showing “burden of release has the Since an is entitled to ac- accused be superintendent is- the refusal of quitted ground on al- statutory certificate sue the trary was arbi- though may merely led have agree capricious.” or I with Leach jury to entertain a reasonable doubt person on that the burden is sanity as to his when the offense occur- holding release; but I draw back from red, validity of continued confine- degree proof must reach that the ment under the commitment may require Leach, thus certitude attributed to re- provisions of section 24-301 crime, quired is, proof convict of that, unless within a reasonable time he beyond doubt, pres- as the progresses becoming danger- toward opinion ent seems also to hold. Since no community, person ous self or degree statute establishes the only by separate committed can be held in a case such this the courts must adjudication civil mind, unsoundness transplant I fashion the rule. would not solely reason of section into field a fixed rule 24-301. It is no means clear that so- grown up elsewhere, expressed in terms ciety deprive person can continue “arbitrariness,” “caprieiousness,” liberty by attributing jury’s to a “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For the condition, doubt about his mental being, time and until the courts have acquittal led to his com- gained greater experience problems mitment, any and pro- all evil or criminal growing out section would pensities may thought have, be go say no further than to keep him in confinement because of evidence and in the circumstances as a them. This would transform the hos- whole the District Court should pital be able penitentiary into where one could judgment way indefinitely reach sound one held for no convicted of- fense, though question and this even release. the offense previously which he was be- position majority that one sanity might cause of doubt as to his charge calling on a for a max- have been one of the more serious felo- imum sentence of 18 months be con- nies. in Elizabeths fined under section 24- availability years perhaps more, ten I the abstract does qualification statute, not save the needs aid of the think constitutionality especially when mandatory it is remembered of this that in com- agree corpus proceeding I a habeas section. that there the burden mitment is a necessary relationship between obtain release rational rests upon petitioner, under section whereas it rests commitment and an committing upon insanity. acquittal reason authorities in civil think proceedings. process commitment society, undue of law The statute it construing gov- problem a solution saved with conditions legislation erning copes, confinement use continued which such a consistent- 24-301, ly process. provision section do due To this the con- notwith- with society danger standing insanity, there tinued warrants respect deprivation liberty sanity, with a doubt continued under opera- be, least, 24h301 comes into alone must 24-301 comparable section section States, v. United Greenwood seriousness See tion. per- of which 76 S.Ct. L.Ed. 412. U.S. the offense provi- acquitted. And if commitment son offense

But upon supposition, namely, character a non-violent rests more sion vary time, question dan a reasonable will within approach to the lenient ease, particularly in connection from case to continued confinement ger order, inis dependent upon release, see be made civil commit- to which conditional greater U.S.App. proceedings, States, with their Hough v. United safeguards, Moreover, procedural and not left in- 271 F.2d 458. D.C. definitely upon alone fore to rest improvement commitment treatment does reasonably adjust ability section well which is more cast summary community, nature therefore does life safeguards. indicated, those require, not afford as above well

Case Details

Case Name: Donald Ragsdale v. Winfred Overholser, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital

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

Date Published: Sep 19, 1960

Citation: 281 F.2d 943

Docket Number: 15437_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.