*1 FIELDING, Appellant, Jimmie America,
UNITED STATES Appellee.
No. 13723. Appeals
United States Court District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June
Decided Dec.
Mr, Bryant (appointed by B. William Court), Washington, C., the District D. whom Messrs. William C. Gardner Joseph Waddy, Washington, C., C. D. brief, appellant. were on the Kern, III, Mr. John W. Asst. S.U. Gasch, Atty., Messrs. whom Oliver Atty., Lewis Carroll and Arthur J. U. S. McLaughlin, Attys., S. Asst. U. brief, appellee. Washington Bazelon, Before Judges. Danaher, Circuit Judge. BAZELON, and killed shot his wife’s February 5, 1954. He was ar- uncle day same was indicted rested the a month murder later. Two first *2 clearly guilty a month a errone- months his arrest verdict indictment, Court ous. District after his the U.S.App.D.C. 232, 234-35, 54-55; Dr. Et- examination. ordered a mental psychia- Filippis, tore de trist, a Government see also appellant District the The examined granted, April jail April motion should 9, and have been be- on of Columbia suffering cause from had to sus- and found him proving beyond tain praecox. hear- its burden of followed a a rea- mentia shooting ing an ad- doubt the was 4244 and that under 18 U.S.C. § product mentally appellant’s appellant the judication in- illness. was mental that competent Appellant was ad- to be tried. showing by ap insanity made The May Hospital on mitted to St. Elizabeths principally on pellant the testi rested 10,1954, under treat- and remained there psychiatrists: mony of three Government years. and one-half almost two Filippis, him who had examined Dr. de certification On October after a April 1954 in connection with the superintendent hospital that he competency stand of his to determination competency, Dis- had recovered his Epstein, trial, Cushard and Drs. adjudicated him be trict Court to Hospital, Elizabeths who had exam St. petent to stand trial. hospital ined him on numerous oc brought finally was When he to beginning casions, with his admission 1956, appellant did December not May 10, Filippis, 1954. Dr. de who made deny but raised the defense jail, two brief examinations at the testi insanity. After the returned a suffering appellant fied that then mur- verdict of praecox, from dementia he had that der, appellant moved for of ac- opinion appellant’s no as to mental condi quittal notwith- tion at time standing the verdict. The District Court other two doctors on the testified imposed denied motion and a sentence basis of examination years of twelve to life. The denial of hospital long over conditions ground appeal. motion is of this that period, it was their that he suffering schizophrenia (another from long concluded, The District Court in a praecox), name for dementia opinion, (a) authority that it lacks the suffering from that illness at the (b) that, such a motion and if to shooting, time of and that the shoot authority, motion with- product was the illness. Dr. merit.1 We think is er- opinion, appel in his added Cushard points. both roneous on distinguish right unable to had been wrong shooting, conclusion that no from n authority acquit direct a refrain adhere to or to insanity notwithstanding right.2 reason tal to Fielding, D.C.D.C.1957, Ap- his fear of the voices. States who, sister, pellant’s F.Supp. 46, like lived in City, Jersey testified that she had seen supple- week; times psychiatric as often as him This frequently complained by appellant’s own he mented feeling his headaches and the about her sister. his “silly” shooting, related some before the in his stomach. time some part. screaming on his She also behavior voices heard him; not eat at her would home be- the voices that he kill were trying poison pains accompanied she was he said terrible he had told her head; and that that his felt as if his stomach trying it; crawling “run him out wife snakes gun Asked whether she concluded carried mind, sound or unsound was of District of Co- he drove City lumbia strong showing insanity made The Government jury- permit defense, reasonable It prove appellant’s beyond showing reasonable men
sought conclude to refute was sane at police officers *3 of have said we tes- What questioned him and the arrested timony sanity ex- about an of elsewhere wife. brother pressed by lay an hav- untrained witness appel- police officers prolonged contact and intimate “rational,” “coher- seemed them lant disposes with accused3 of the testi- normal,” ent,” and “of sound “perfectly mony policemen of the in this case. Appellant’s brother, lived normalcy conclusions and soundness city appellant and in a different expressed by appellant’s brother much,” testified around him too “wasn’t higher wife, stand much than not that, hours a few when he saw policemen. those of Both “normal,” shooting, he acted before touch with considerable afraid; you know, how “like was just time until be afraid was a kid would a little training professed any neither have get whipping.” Pressed Govern- experience sanity. or Moreover, in the opinion as to whether counsel an observations, upon their actual “of sound or unsound brother was rest, which their must witness mind” when he saw hardly consistent with conclusions nor- “Well, to be fair and I want said: malcy or soundness of mind. What we people square. I around haven’t been Douglas States, said in App.D.C. I wouldn’t know whether unsound mind. page 239, * * * 239 F.2d at wife, or not.” 59, applies here: Government, called “True, there non-expert testi- on her observation direct that based mony. But this cut both “unsound” at her husband he not ways, deeply at least as record the direc- crime. But the insanity tion separated appel- Our she had been shows judicial conclusion spending until as a factual for several months matter night reasonable doubt was with created apartment City. the disinterested medical On at their cross-examination, testimony, coupled adjudi- with the she testified cation of they night, appel- unsoundness of mind and went to bed hospitalization eighteen glasses lant “had bed. twenty-nine months [here head, months], one One at the and one foot changed by is not Now, lay middle of what witnesses in the the bed. for, I don’tknow.” She also corroborated # *» appellant’s own judg We therefore reverse the long suffered from such severe headaches 4 Douglas ment of conviction. We said in occasion, on one she am- called an that our conclusion that the Government bulance. prove sanity beyond a rea lay necessarily does not re All together quire us direct that a taken of ac quittal by sufficiently probative, in the face be entered people and As insane “he “sick.” to whether acted Eke he was an in- said
she
mental,
person.”
physical
sane
¿
she
sickness
“
* experienced
said,
I am not
Wright
States,
things
kind
of those
one
either
4;
D.C. -.
**
knew
said she
“some-
U.S.App.D.C.
thing”
“because he
right
She added
act
didn’t
her brother
insanity,”
she saw some
to “the
mitted
notwithstanding
occasion
we have
Since
may
the verdict.”
“deficiencies
be
observe
held,
new trial is
process
we collect
course, will
upon
cases like
limited
evidence
turn”;
degrees
of homicide.
examina murder
lesser
expert
S.Ct. 221.
Green v. United
witnesses’
which the
tions
“inadequate
is based
So ordered.
enough
gather
informa
do not
origin
pin-point
ill
[the]
DANAHER,
(dissent-
by way
;
required
facts
that “the
ness”
ing).
“ ‘descrip
*4
are a
judgment
here moved for
origin,
explanation
de
and
acquittal
notwith
velopment
al
manifestations of the
and
standing
judge
verdict.
trial
occurred,
leged
how it
disease
ruled
motion should be denied
developed,
affected the mental
Here,
majority
on the merits.1
processes of
emotional
the defendant
substituting
”
its
that of the
*,’
“the examinations
trier who saw and heard the witnesses
psychiatrists must be
conducted
possible position
in
and was
appraise
the best
of a character
deem sufficient
weight
the evidence
purpose
determining
the
quired.”
the facts re
be accorded to it. His
review2 of the
feels that
my
conveys complete
case to mind
convic
produce
can
it
issue
question
properly
tion that the
left
appellant’s sanity at
jury.3
to the decision of the
I understand
produce
could
it
that a
is not bound to
credit
thought
unnecessary
produce
it
at
psychiatrists
but rather is
trial,8
here,
the last
we think
as in
accept
reject
free to
just
testimony,
Wright, that the
should have
do as to the
opportunity.
We therefore remand
any other witness.
case
to the District Court “with in
suggestion
grant
structions to
a new
trial if
Gov
error
conduct
request it;
shall
or,
ernment
request,
and I
such
absent
would affirm
acquittal
merits.
enter a
joined
States, supra
I there
the dissent.
Insofar as
5.
note 3.
v. United
1956,
Douglas v. United
States, 1957,
Blunt
U.S.
6.
52,
App.D.C.
239 F.2d
can be said
App.D.C.
note 23.
application,
to have
declared
U.S.App.
Williams v. United
that “Each case must be decided
quoting
page
D.C.
own facts.” 99
its
59.
It was also
pointed
directing
out that
a verdict of not
only
8.
was held
trial
Douglas
short-
duty
is “a
ly
after our
decision
performed
with caution
be
the more recent decisions referred to in
of the deference
due to the
the text in
we discussed
the nature
resolving
factual
issues.”
Government’s burden when a
D.C.
F.2d at
insanity may reasonably
fense
an-
ticipated
properly
or is
Holtzoff’s
raised.
See
excellent
Fielding,
United States
D.C.D.C.
He also
au
concluded
he lacked
F.Supp.
1957, 148
thority
the motion. To
ex
States, 1957,
Wright v.
Bradley
tent
3. Cf.
States.
U.S.App.D.C. —,