*1 662 corpus The issue writ of habeas should custody being appellant
because is held in preliminary hearing, in
without a viola- ap-
tion for of Rule 5. There is no need
pellant in the to establish more than this
hearing on not use the writ: He need opportunity
this occasion an to rebut as showing probable the of Government’s above,
cause. As indicated I think that remedy proper
the is to the instruct Dis- writ,
trict Court to issue the to be made preliminary hearing
absolute unless a is prior held the date of to return. See Clemmer, supra.
Washington v. Jr., Hornet, Washington,
Mr. Roland S.
Barnard,
C., with whom
D.
Mr. Robert C.
by
Washington,
appointed
(both
D. C.
brief,
court),
appel-
for
this
was
the
on
lant.
WYNDER, Appellant,
James O.
Atty.
Gilbert,
Gerald E.
Mr.
Asst. U. S.
v.
Acheson,
with
Messrs.
C.
U.
whom
David
America,
UNITED STATES of
Atty.,
Q. Nebeker,
John
S.
Frank
A.
Appellee.
Terry
Palmer,
and Allan
Asst.
M.
U. S.
No. 18758.
Attys.,
brief,
appellee.
were on the
for
Appeals
United States Court of
Washington
Before
and Bur-
Fahy,
District of Columbia Gircuit.
Judges.
ger, Circuit
Argued April 1, 1965.
28,
Decided June
1965.
PER CURIAM.
Rehearing
Petition for
En Banc
Wynder
Louis Y. Wilson and James 0.
23,
Sept.
Denied
1965.
robbery,
indicted for
were
D.C.Code
§
17,
Certiorari Denied Jan.
1966.
22-2901,
together,
were tried
and were
See
viction affirmed court 17, 1964, States, v. United Wilson U.S.App.D.C. 72, 120 166. To 344 F.2d applicable, con the extent that decision is trolling here. Two contentions ad additional by Wynder be considered.
vanced must although pre-trial One that his motion is properly for a mental examination was granted, completed examination was the month), (about a in too short a time and inadequate. report, In the was its staff Fahy, appellant Judge, Circuit of Elizabeths found that dissented. St. hearing unprepared. pre- by to a Nor the Government a substitute for a was the hearing. particulars provided liminary bill of to defendant
663 and “blankets refer to as the I competent incident to stand trial and was was in our briefly described incident chains” at mental or defect both without disease this opinion. I now think Since alleged the Wilson time of crime and the the propor- of constitutional matter a Appellant was be of the examination. time er- apply harmless not the tions, I would urged days re that at 90 was low least might be which otherwise examination, criterion ror quired adequate an to make remand and I applicable. would reverse pe appeal and now on some contends that trial. actually for a new longer thirty days riod than the necessary proper ex afforded was for a period
amination. But no set there is
required examination; for a and mental appear
the examination have does not to inadequate any
been for other reason. for
He moved a second examination. The denial of his of motion was not an abuse judge’s Perry
the trial discretion. Cf. v. States, U.S.App.D.C.-,
United 121 347 (1964), 13, F.2d 813 cert. denied Dec. Appellant, CEPHUS, R. Earl 1965, 86 438. S.Ct. v. Young In and Simmons v. United America, Appellee. STATES of UNITED States, U.S.App.D.C. 312, 120 F.2d 346 No. 18669. (1965), 793 we had occasion to criti judge cize the trial for his interfer Appeals of Court United States deroga ence with the Circuit. defense and his of Columbia District tory concerning court-ap remarks the 15, Argued 1965. Jan. pointed attorney defending who was the 21, 1965. accused. The Decided June conduct there condemned reversing the was basis for the convic Rehearing En Banc for Petition unnecessary judicial tion. Some inter 5, Denied Oct. 1965. and vention in the criticism occurred 4,1965. Dismissed Nov. Certiorari present case, regard but we do not it as 86 229. See S.Ct. depriving appellant trial, this of a fair and we have re concluded we should not
verse on account of it. points by haveWe considered all raised
appellant and found them without merit.
The conviction is
Affirmed.
FAHY, dissenting: Judge, Circuit
Appellant was tried with Louis Y. Wil robbery. son for Wilson’s conviction was
affirmed, 72, U.S.App.D.C. 120 344 F. joining 2d 166. After in the affirmance
I rehearing, which, however, for a voted My voting
was denied. reason for so was
that on further the consideration after hearing present of the I case concluded Wilson, that Ias now conclude with re spect appellant, to tried in manner was a right process
which violated his to due grows
of law. This of conclusion out the