*1 hereby, be, de- Affirmed. appeal pending and it is nied. BURGER, (concurring Circuit the court It is further ordered result). copy this order issue a certified appeal I would dismiss the as frivolous. Court forthwith. District HOUGH, Appellant, Edith L. J. Charles O. RAMSEUR
Alberta v. Ramseur, Appellants, America, UNITED STATES v. Appellee. Receiver, THOMPSON, William S. 14923, Nos. 14924. Appellee. 14864. Appeals United States Court District Columbia Circuit. Appeals Court United States April 8, Argued 1959. Circuit. Columbia District Sept. Decided 1959. Argued April 1959. May Decided Washington, Mollohan, Jr.,
Mr. E. W. Ramseur. C., J. Charles
D. C., Washington, Johannes, D. George Mr. appearance for entered also Ramseur. J.
Charles C., Washington, Miller, D. Herman Mr. appellant Alberta brief on the Ramseur.
O. Washington, Evans, H. Frederick Mr. William S. C., Messrs. whom D. Dolphin, Yerginald L. Thompson and brief, for C.,
Washington, were D.
appellee. Washington Bazelon, Before Judges.
Burger, Circuit CURIAM.
PER judgment appeal an awarding fee to a property involved real certain receiver of dis- no abuse find litigation. We
cretion.
459 Judge, Miller, dis- K. Circuit Wilbur part.
sented Jr., Washing- Mr. Frank Whalen, J. ton, C.,D. with whom Messrs. Samuel Spencer Graham, and Donald K. Wash- ington, C.,D. brief, ap- were on the for pellant. Belcher, Mr. Carl tty., W. A Asst. U. S. Gasch, whom Mr. Atty., Oliver U. S. brief, appellee.
was on the for Wilbur Miller, Before K. Bazelon Judges. Fahy, Circuit BAZELON, Judge. Circuit appeals These involve construction of provisions those of the D.C.Code re- quiring persons acquitted of crimes insanity reason of to be confined in a hospital prescribing mental the con- procedure ditions and for their release. Appellant was 17, indicted June 1957, for a murder committed in cir- strongly suggesting cumstances that she mentally day ill. The next she was ordered to St. Hospital Elizabeths competency determination of her to stand trial. period After two-month she was incompetent found and was committed to hospital until restoration of her com- petency. May 23, On she was competent found to stand trial but was ordered to remain in the until trial, July the trial. held on judgment culminated of ac- quittal insanity appel- reason of lant was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital required by D.C.Code 24- § 301(d) (Supp. VII, 1959). She had then been under treatment at the year. more than a 20, 1958, On October when had been under treatment for about six- months, Superintendent teen of St. Hospital filed in the stating pertinent Court a certificate part: * * supervision released under “Miss has now supplied.) granted (Emphasis “such certifi- her condi- For hearing procedural provisions cate” the tional from Saint Elizabeths Hospital (e) pursuant applicable: are to section unconditional release *3 “ * * * and, hearing if, and of Public 313. after a Law weighing evidence, the shall court the plan “The recom- under which we person find that the condition such of be conditional release mend that the release, warrants his conditional the granted in accordance with is that such court shall order his release under plan of of a total the continuation or, fit, conditions if as the court shall see per- be rehabilitation Miss find, the court not so the court shall does Elizabeths to mitted leave Saint person order such returned to such hos- go city Hospital of to the Wash-_ to pital.” (Emphasis supplied.) unaccompanied ington, C., in an D. employment. to obtain effort proposed appel- The release here plan be car- recommended that lant was a The Unit- conditional release. hospital very out under close ried Attorney objected ed States to it and subject supervision and she be that hearing. Testify- District Court held a period during of her at all times ing hearing pro- support at the of his supervi- to the release posal appellant conditionally, to release Depart- Service of the Social sion Overholser, Superintendent of Hospital Elizabeths ment of Saint Hospital, St. Elizabeths stated that he report Eliza- to that she Saint and require appellant report would hospital to the to at Hospital examinations beths plan once a week under a of designated by the as are times such supervision close and treatment. To Hos- of Saint authorities show she had demonstrated her pital.” readiness for such condi- release under danger community, tions without to the com- persons been have who Release hospital’s doctor cited successful acquit- hospital after a mental mitted to experience appellant in a treatment by governed insanity is by reason of tal program and rehabilitation under which 1959). VII, (Supp. (e) 24-301 D.C.Code§ appellant been allowed leave the had to fif- is authorized release Unconditional grounds hospital day, for several hours a hos- days certification teen only by seventy-five- accompanied per- “(1) superintendent such pital returning year mother, every old even- sanity, (2) that, his has recovered son ing ; appellant improved this was as superintendent, such opinion of the increasing frequency allowed with until future person in the reasonable will not 1958, 15, appellant after October others, dangerous himself or grounds away hospital from the superintendent, opinion (3) every day; similar circumstances almost unconditional person to his entitled ** opinion that, hospital au- hospital release thorities, progressed prosecutor’s objection upon danger to munity. this without com- do or, upon required office, court is to— hearing initiative, own its —hold presented evidence determine The District Court denied conditional whether “such therein 12, order of December release sanity not in the and will covered The court also invited the United States dangerous him- future be reasonable Attorney to seek modification the com- * * *.” others self or require mitment order upon hospital grounds, or, to the authorized be restricted Conditional release superintendent grounds, outside the if in the certificate custody company “is not in such condition individual attend- ant until time his unconditional such to warrant court orders appellant. the conditional condition is in a but empowers the court to which the statute United Subsequently, upon motion of fit,”2 impose “as shall see [it] Attorney, were restrictions these —“such States future reasonable will not Decem- imposed order the court’s or others.” to himself 23, 1958. ber gives legislative effect distinction discuss appeal we In unconditional between conditional and first, of the order review seeks diluting the statute’s release without denying condition- December judicial protect power (1) points are Her al release. safety. public weight contrary order denying below In an oral (2) court evidence case, the statute release in this the District interpretation of in its erred *4 agreement applied psychiatrists respect cited the of the to the standard with suffering was still release. conditional for schizophrenia type, of the involving appeal con- the first offense, seriousness of her the doctors’ pro- release struction insight con- that she lacked (e). v. Overholser 24-301 visions § cerning offense, the seriousness of 289, U.S.App.D.C. 257 Leach, 1958, 103 period elapsed the short had since proceed- corpus 667, 669, a habeas F.2d trial, punishment her and the need of for finding ing, of the construction involved crime. court also filed formal find- The “that release: required unconditional ings It fact and conclusions of law. sanity and has recovered such not recovered found that dan- future be reasonable will ** sanity and that “it has not been gerous others to himself or will not in the rea- shown [she] rejected re- the contention There we dangerous sonable future be to herself sanity for re- covery sufficient others.” The conclusions of law stat- or to re- statute lease. construed We by pre- ed that “it has not been shown a men- such abnormal quire “freedom from [appel- ponderance evidence that individ- would make conditions as tal should be released lant] the com- himself or ual munity ** *; that the Government has shown reasonably fu- foreseeable preponderance of the evidence ture.” ” * * * should not [she] But for conditional release the specific: requires statute is less cannot discern from either We court to “find court’s oral or its that the condition of such warrants and conclusions of law what distinc his conditional fact » (cid:127)>:- * * whereupon any, tion, if it drew the statu he shall between order his tory requirements “under re release such conditions as the * * 1 impose] court shall see fit those for unconditional release. *.” [to lease light provision must District We construe this Court did have policy underlying present of the basic of our construction of the the stat benefit legisla policy, statute, made now for the first ute. That as we read the time. history, judicial provide tive administration dictates treatment Sound refrain from cure for the individual that we review of the evi a manner which affords and allow the trial court to evalu reasonable dence assurance light safety. public Accordingly, in the first instance in it principles we think ate applicable. upon we now hold that to order conditional challenged Accordingly appealed we certification reverse or the court must in No. 14923 and remand conclude that the der the case individual has recov pro the District Court ered so that under the directions to parties opportunity posed conditions—or under to re- conditions afford all-or-nothing acceptance rejection (c) (Supp. VII, 1959). 1. 24-301 § D.C.Code recommended the conditions hos- Clearly the court is not to an bound pital superintendent. 462 light acquitted who crime of this has been
consider the case in charged. supplement the opinion, with leave parties are court or record if the follow, however, It does not advised. hospital allow free to authorities are hospital patient with- such a leave Appeal from the 14924 is readily supervision. out We December Court’s order of periodic may thera- freedom be valuable question indi- presents whether an outright py. So, suppose, re- men- we to a vidual who has been committed statute sometimes acquittal be. hospital crime lease of a tal appellant’s judicial situation a may, makes one in insanity without by reason of peo- exceptional class of member of “an ple.” approval, permitted supra, Leach, grounds Overholser v. authorities to leave U.S.App.D.C. page F.2d at guard at attendant. without a generally, page provides, 669. It Overholser, Superintendent any ter- District Court have a voice Hospital, testified St. confinement, whether mination of her periodic absences course of hospital conditional. unconditional or guard attendant without necessary step process of *5 in the a Although the statute does not habilitating be patient he can so that speak temporary leaves from the hos community place in the restored to his pital, purpose, it, its as we read is to danger or others. himself without “exceptional assure that members of the hand, Court, the other on The suggested appellant belongs kept class” to which under such individual an hospital under restraint until the Dis pris- supposed “a commitment is a Court, trict in the a exercise of discre oner.” tion, Court, approves reviewable this appellant The statute relaxation of a that restraint. We read is committed silent as to conditions pres “conditional release” used in the provides of confinementor It treatment. tempo ent statute to include the kind of whereby specific no test one can deter- rary given freedom which has been this therapy, mine whether rehabilitative appellant. not, course, We do lose clearly province which is of the hos- sight hospital’s of the view that such pital alone, to conditional re- amounts temporary freedom is often an essential lease, province which is the of the court therapeutic part process and, there here, as well. as with the criteria for So fore, prevented. must not be But call interpret conditional general language we must ing pre it a conditional release does not light used in simply requires hospital it. vent legislative purpose. authorities, they when decide that a light patient stage purpose, In the of that we must reached the where such suggestion necessary reject proper, District Court’s freedom is to certi Nothing “prisoner.” fy appellant that fact to the is a District Court and history appropriate order, an of the statute —and noth- obtain by reviewable ing language in that an this Court. It should its not be antici —indicates hospital pated that the District individual committed to a mental Court would arbi trarily prevent hospital acquittal of a crime reason authorities temporary insanity patient. utilizing from apy than a The leaves for ther other proper hospital in in cases. The individual confined court would simply statutory treatment, punish- purpose fulfill its role de ciding length ment; sup whether or not the and the of confinement is evidence hospital’s governed solely by ports the of his determination considerations public safety. Any patient’s in reasonable likelihood the and the all condition temporary from the preoccupation the District Court with absence un specified endanger punishment crime der conditions will is out need dealing place others. in with individual 1958, ap- spite this, In of December in the month follow- The order ing accordingly- pealed her trial No. 14924 is the St. Elizabeths authori- began permit ties affirmed. leave the times three about and remanded No. 14923 reversed spend day Washington, week and proceedings further as directed by any hospital unescorted accompanied only by attendant and opinion. 75-year-old her No. 14924 is affirmed. Probably encouraged by mother. fact that no untoward occurred incident MILLER, Circuit WILBUR K. during periods these of unauthorized re- concurring (dissenting 14,923 leases,1 Overholser, Superintend- 14,924). in No. the result Hospital, ent of St. Elizabeths certified May 30, 1957, Zurab Abdusheli On to the District Court on October Hough, appellant, Edith L. called on the 1958: Woodner, apartment at her “Miss has now recovered large apartment in the District of hotel granted her condi- Columbia, express sympathy his over tional release from Saint Elizabeths said father. She the recent death of her Hospital pursuant 927(e) section “psycho- that Abdusheli became later logically (e), of Public Law 313 24-301 D. [§ aggressive,” wrapped (1951)]. C.Code pistol and shot him several towel moaning plan lay day “The under which we recom As he times. fallen, mend that the conditional release be where he bed granted temple placed pistol accordance close to plan again, put the continuation of total out his mis- him shot “to *6 per ery.” telephoned police. Miss rehabilitation Then she psychiatrists, phrenia, the trial and which pellant the hospital suant dy Accordingly thorities certified she tion, where stand her, District Court Hospital, ed. On In degree Immediately after the was reason due court and to assist to the nature of the was murder. course, was diagnosed for the May 23, 1958, § ordered a Government 24-301(d), judge present committed she was which, insanity. Thereupon, pur- still and was she was was observed and treat- mentally her to as exists. of the United States in her own defense. according before type high grade was able to under- tried on D.C.Code to indicted for first found mental killing, —a charge ill. St. Elizabeths confined hospital au- Her mala- not to condition July 10, against institu- (1951), during schizo- all the guilty ap- whereupon District cember ment’s on, order release. Miss he entered ing, after which on December to the Holtzoff to visions 301(e) Elizabeths Hough, to leave the The United States ington, mitted to leave [*] effort Hospital “Ordered permit [*] bears our motion and after District Court: * 2 conducted an proposed D. to an order to 24 D.C.Code Hospital C., unaccompanied go Hough’s appeal from that Superintendent obtain pursuant defendant, to No. conditional denying Saint Elizabeths view the Attorney objected Judge evidentiary is directed 14,923. grounds city employment. hearing to the Govern- 301(d) of Wash Edith L. Alexander 12, 1958, of St. On De- in an pro- there- not hear- St. regained sanity, permitting not as 1. I think requires that he do in such unescorted visits to Wash- statute these make to ington, authorities his he Elizabeths a statement. the St. still he considered her to be suf- stated it themselves took consulting fering schizophrenia, type, from without court. releases I shall show. 2. Dr. Overholser certify did Hospital except majority opinion in the could have been of employed custody Judge of an benefit attendant had it been District Hospital motion, such time as until him when said before he heard the help parties condition- how it this Court could order him when the Hough.” al L. reconsider release of Edith after remand and introduce to understand what by all is ditional familiar with he reaching mand because evidence. ties an denying put For that reason our Miss I dissent present made now unconditional release. what tween for conditional release and those the court’s oral ings Court did reconsider and supplement reversal employed No. it, justified “We cannot discern from not difficultto Hough's appeal from this order with 14,923. demonstrated opportunity light “remand the case to the of fact and distinction, *”3 14,924. proof. conditional release his decision. construction of It seems to directions and remand of this and indeed the correct I think statutory requirements the The have the benefit Nor do they purpose will be served perhaps record to reconsider statute, understand, conclusions if majority opinion, that he the first any, reverse reversal me the District I am required for the I see how afford the order if so The District introduce standards or its it drew be and, which say: with was unable to statute, advised.” of denial and of our either the case and re- parties time. find law order *7 quite leave they par- ad- be hearing the two jection thorizes the himself or release; to be followed two forms of unconditionally tendent of the set forth in superintendent’s opinion court mentally ill, pursuant C.Code main the same: minations were sion. conclusions of law released ture be insane woman cuss issue which was ion and ute additional evidence. A In order to unconditionally reporting for occasional interviews. District of is, reasonable future be (1) I shall examine criteria, (1951), may the court to order and but think was the United States others, confined in § Holtzoff’s the determine sanity, 24-301 release and show how confinement, inwill the confined before Columbia whether pertinent show his factual deter- court released. to herself decided clearly confined respect conditionally. such certificate (e). be released to 24-301 The the reasonable fu- him, application it; may, whether, § simple certifies (2) that, in this he will If the dangerous unconditional only shall, hold issue will re- to that deci- and then dis- correct. His and his subject person Attorney and on ob admittedly procedure them are others if superin for the (d), not in under either shall opin- legal stat- only au or D. to it, majority opinion nothing in the quite 3. I see decision consistent it. His any point out that than statute, does more which tbe that construction of with grant court release the unconditional easily to from the some- derived which person has the confined inapt must find that language con- in which the what sanity will not in the his and provision release is couched. ditional dangerous him- future be reasonable adds a third factor which 4. The statute grant others; con- and self superintendent: certified must be that, find court must release ditional super- “(3) person although .not recovered has intendent, person is entitled to Ms un- sanity, will reasonable he not Ms from the conditional * * release dangerous to himself or otliers. be future surplusage, This is it must distinction, although'stated now automatically if follow the first two fac- readily time, express for terms the first superintendent. tors are certified and I am sure from the statute seen fully aware Court was' District respect release, respect to the unconditional release of a With to conditional sanity. super- person that, who recovered his provides where statute to the court intendent certifies So, considering that, I think wheth- person judgment “is the confined release, e., er i. his uncon- such warrant condition as to person whether the confined insane will in a condition to ditional but danger- not in the reasonable future be super- conditionally under be vision,” released others, ous to himself court should order court is authorized only take consideration fact into person’s under conditions release insane, person is still confined But, provides. inas the case which it fully but should advised as also be may, release, the court of unconditional nature, intensity probable dura- objection States the United and on illness, tion of the mental since those Attorney Columbia or the factors should ing in determin- be considered hearing shall, determine there- hold a whether confined be person, who the confined whether himself or others if according superintendent has not to the only leased occasional interviews sanity, is in condition to recovered his thereafter. supervi- released under regard part With to at least of what sion. subject said I have on the in- to me that a confined seems clear majority agree, they say: person “is in a condition to be con- sane ditionally “* * * Accordingly, we think supervision” released up- to order conditional release only not in the reasonable when he will challenged on a certification the dangerous to himself or future be others. conclude that indi- court must deciding important course In this it is of has recovered vidual super- sort of to know what court proposed under the conditions present case, proposed. In vision * * will not ‘such any suggestion physical there is no dangerous * * reasonable future control; supervision restraint, ” himself or others.’ suggested by super- only supervision they not mention the fact do con- patient report per- is that intendent haps importance insanity, and the tinued interview. Oth- a week once that fact the consideration condi- entirely own, on her erwise is to be suggest- just which I have tional release day-to-day of actual sort free ed. supervision by hospital authorities and contrary, my brothers are On the rath- attendants. Judge’s opin- the District er critical Obviously, is more conditional release conclusions, they ion, *8 justify is than unconditional difficult to as follows: summarize respect For, release. opinion denying “In an oral condi- release, is that the con- the certificate case, in this the tional release insane, Dis- person still but that the fined agreement cited the trict Court of superintendent it would be safe to thinks psychiatrists that the is, was supervision. It of release him course, suffering schizophrenia still of easier to believe that a much type, the seriousness the person not the reasonable sane will offense, her doctors’ dangerous the himself or others future be insight concerning she that lacked that an insane than to believe offense, of the seriousness the the even not The court should be will be. period elapsed had examining which short since the more evidence careful trial, punish- need of danger her and the in conditional involved the * * * for person, [the ment crime.5 insane than with of an release governs punish- comment, matter that judge’s not the “need of 5. The denying part crime,” conclusion Court's the de- ment had no quest expressly process. defendant’s release.” for the Ho “it cisional said requires had not No that doubt the be- court] found statute so cause, considering sanity ‘it has and recovered her judge type will not know in- [she] not been shown should danger- sanity future be the reasonable which the confined suffers, The con- and ous to herself or others.’ the seriousness of the crime ‘it has stated that which it caused. so clusions of law This is because by preponderance mental not shown condition and the form of vio- been [appellant] lence which it on the the evidence that resulted from bear conditionally question danger in reasona- should be released * * whether may release. An two marized how ard which summary tween the As have they ion, I evidence shown I suppose forms of findings have cannot #» statutory requirements ; used indicates the pointed applies analysis discern from the court and release.6 preponderance implication is conclusions thus sum- this case only out, [she] Government distinguished be- to unconditional the oral should opinion, majority some stand- not opin- find- say there phrenia finding her properly pointed ly tially were out The short illustrates cerning the that doctors said she ble future I her mental recovered note also that there was an question trial granted. were dangerous that “it has not been shown that period should be lessened the seriousness from her whether malady intensity —that safely In like which had anticipated herself and because she is lacks liberated. manner, and possibility her crime had sufficient- sheds elapsed insight permanence still that fact if light express others. schizo- poten- since con- fact —if was ings majori- shows will in the reasonable future [she] and conclusions others,” ty’s He did not be herself to be unfounded. fear had did not the Government shown him consider that preponderance before have question Miss of the evidence that she whether sanity. That was not be released. should finding upon problem, have been on an was that which deci- it would This turned; from, flowed at unconditional release. but it application for sion upon, previ- part still based fact that she was least was But the admitted properly judge, in the conclusions, por- ous made court’s oral statements before insane requires opinion, statute it be because margin.7 reproduce in which him. tion certified to acquitted defendant Court which the District was not tution in 6. Of course distinction, Court, and the statute make such a but and the confined provides called on only hear and whether evidence sat- the Court to decide statutory requirements weigh evidence. con- isfied the release. ditional must concern the matter “The anything else than is the safe- “The is before the more Court: case community Superin ty in case the defendant a certificate Court on type Hospital crime to the tendent of St. Elizabeths released. *9 defendant, be considered in that who must has been committed effect that she ground example, insanity acquitted Eor there is less on the of of connection. community degree, danger if an embezzler murder in the first of the crime repeats permitted released on released and the crime be a be be should . provided a as than if murderer is Sec of embezzlement repeats possibly a of the District of crime Columbia 24r-301 released tion objec type. the Court is Government has filed Therefore of that Code. opinion greater proposed caution must release. that of tions releasing person contemplates a in a a divided re- exercised “The statute be sponsibility a case ease than in of a non- in such matters as between murder Superintendent the mental of insti- crime. violent
467 testimony, pertinent part said, did from his a Overholser As I have Dr. done, appears margin.8 the which certify, that These as he should have although excerpts that, was Dr. That he also show still insane. is clearly appears however, proposed opinion, Overholser that L. the Court as amended would be to Excerpt ing Hough, Findings crime. Court insanity. There is no doubt shown that feels which the last released a person route to Dr. ing that she murder was committed. der. She though far as the phrenia ly ion preponderance pute mal emotional tifiable. sight fendant erns defendant was that sive that what she her crime. and that it would schizophrenia, [My emphasis.] The defendant was tried “8. “1. “Upon “7. “All “There “She “In view of all of type mere acquitted Hough, four months from that it has not Karpman Karpman, July type, every request over the the Court’s conclusion into her Based That under also finds that testimony Based feels, will not it temporary flare-up, from the institution. The Court of the should be is still afflicted escape punishment six schizophrenia In other *10 consideration of the for a “Conclusions of Law finds that the that kind within * * is community in the ease is not has not Court wishes to psychiatrists Fact, on the August 9, 1955, upon potentially psychiatrists according to herself or make testified that acquitted another ” fact that following upon did was coldblooded, especially reaction of evidence that crime. There is later, suffering of Dr. Guttmacher suffering long words, the matter defendant, the reasonable Court conditionally released defendant’s ground been established safe of this Court concludes: she rarely recover, D.C.Code of fact: evidence, to all of a it excusable or duration and not with this on the circumstance dangerous. defendant, concerned. to release her so she And witnesses agree is of she has no type, foregoing requests has not been who persons from horrible from others. feeling about for a serious procedure to release has few it has not advert, al- insanity now. Edith ground foregoing that and also testified] especial- denying doctors, no nor- 801(e), months aggres- no dis- disease. schizo- sanity. future suffer- Edith three opin- mur- [list- open who gov- jus- de- in- L. a behavior much remorse unusual attitude had gard? sume why shown nery Zurab she was done she still killing been from the other moment ing unusual L. tionally pursuant A. One of the features that was rather course, in Juno of arrest. should have obtained an been shown evidence that had occasion to examine improvement, She showed a say, think so. the other Yes, although she had shown considerable striking, saw no reason she didn’t think that she should have even from Hough, fering self preponderance ample, was concerned. should have done pital pursuant tered (e), Except “Q. “Q. “Q. So “Q. And is it not a fact also that “Q. Now “Q. “Q. What “2. The this [*] gone had committed was due to the fact pretty too. She as amended nothing charged? confinement at St. it July [the Assistant U. S. Abdusheli? from a the deceased case, Now, And for the better. Up A. should to that first time would I mentally ill? A. feel into it police she hasn’t patients think, should 10, 1958; much. ’57, [*] until Government has shown then, yes. same; namely, in what she had done. She remorse for In that wrong. Dr. symptoms major why your office, changed considerably, of the stayed pretty general aloofness, may follow there if be released if I A. patients; far of this a should have made enough was that she saw noth- she had would August 9, Overholser’s order not be she A. preponderance she did no on the [*] as her defendant, Yes, might go anything mental disease? A. changed evidence that regard, verdict, moment, I can’t this case? A. thought you say did she evidence moment, for that. released condi stayed by her, indictment, D.C.Code this Court about you ward, adjustment having she was suf- I take it so 1955.” wouldn’t be much in that re- back for a Attorney], is correct. testimony: say Mr. Flan- when no. Her about was wrong saw her? Edith L. she had has she the act. for ex- doesn’t I of the that I Edith killed 1 away # Hos your her- this any you as- en it, a convincing “Q. lease, your opinion in his he was not effort In Edith is L. Hough justify aggressive para- type to it. aggres- Yes, noid? A. she is the Karpman was of Dr. type sive evidenced fact illuminating. particularly —as had been He that took she measures of her own appellant’s a de- friend and associate of killing aggres- man. That is (who psy- been a ceased father had also siveness. chiatrist) observed and had known and Hough “Q. agres- many your years. Because In Miss is an family friend, paranoid potentially reluc- was a he was a he sive ? early universally ag- As tant witness. A. It is conceded gressive dangerous. Karpman apprehensive paranoid as to had I been is might universally happen. say said: even what He would that we urged hospitalize any schizophren- paranoid “I the father to that think her; potentially dangerous, do and of course he wouldn’t is be- ic personal- predicted, I him I told cause one can tell when the it. never may meas- ly, what we never can tell that meekness submissiveness type suddenly a of this what turn around and become ures or might aggressive. psychosis do. something very I did- drastic. “Q. say you Edith L. Would murder, I am because n’t think potentially at is this time pre- astrologer I couldn’t not an dangerous because she has schizo- advance; I said some- but dict phrenia, type? A. I might thing happen. drastic ques- this would rather not answer thought psy- “Q. directly. had a me whether You she tion Ask chosis at anoid “Q. [*] schizophrenia. What [*] [*] psychosis? time? A. [*] [*] A. Yes. ^ Par- [*] Yes. dangerous, “Q. You would schizophrenic and I would say yes? potentially say yes. A. that she ing as Yes. major ficulty a conditional I lease? soning A. think, stand against did general right. ment—not that she “Q. “Q. “Q. “Q. “Q. “Q. “Q. Now, “Q. suppose it not? schizophrenic reaction, and that from a schizophrenia, paranoid type? I believe she what why mental from' In other However, Very And She can’t So the And doesn’t she still A. attitude, yes. objective should have a regard to me. it was not. A. That is correct. criminal in this major well, doctor, today she was what have. justified disease, diagnosis words, although Many people exercise now she were originally? mental disease known she has made that she still case, reasoning. ij: charges protecting that, you if she is still suffer- said, present diagnosis what can doing hasn’t paranoid type; objective have certified can she? A. sfc can’t were she? A. A. still has protection feel have dif- what her soul? changed That’s is her under- placed state- given today [*] rea- she A. I antee mental people, ing probability the conduct.” explode, well as cumstances? nity. killed someone under ly just stress. Other is no with her have her this conditionally it seems that we Yes, would ceedings, your plan, “Q. Now, “Q. great herself or frequent herself major died we do just about substantial menace And hospitals. be afforded to the some of whom have number of frustrations have possibility she and so return through less than 18 months mental man; if have you say me, intervals into permanence, has had given getting A. if you possibility speak, factors were others? A. at this on. I can’t Yes, disease, our social do plan her to show with a community fact her along, enough and even do harm have a woman, very stage and under to hospital at fair- make despite to the commu- or even interview, were released keep never been public isn’t there a great violent cir- opportunity involved Well, service, father she plan? who has in touch and met the ago adjust- might about guar- many there great pro- fact she she but A. *11 schizophrenic is “Q. A po- dangerous? A. Is potentially dangerous.
tentially hos- “Q. you know And diagnosis is that
pital case schizo- present time she at Well, type?
phrenia, paranoid A. thing.” the same is about suffering from schizo- This woman type.
phrenia That she Karp- aggressive, to Dr. as testified readily apparent action
man, from her killing coolly fell She far her caller. showing entitled to condi- she is short of showed, release. Government
tional think, conclusively con- I rather might harm well dition is such that she released and herself or others were she go permitted to without restraint. about fully justi- I the refusing think
fied
lease, accu- he and that understood
rately applied he the statute when did Accordingly, Bazelon, Judge, I affirm or- so. would dissented. Circuit der. portion 14-,924. their In the deals the second of my appeals, affirm the two brothers
order which directed Dr. Overholser not permit leave St. grounds except in the custo-
dy hospital attendant. of a concur in result. IVES, formerly
Ruth Ruth F. Isen F. stein, Appellant,
v. FRANKE,Secretary
William B. Navy, Appellee.
No. 14956. Appeals
United States Court of District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 15, 1959. Sept.
Decided 1959. Rehearing
Petition En Banc Denied Oct.