*1 suggesting departure original
intent, the Government asserting
burden them.24 sufficiently think shows the record dwelling
that defendant entered objective stealing property, necessary,
force if and that carried objective.
out this there is sub- Since Congress intended
stantial doubt that situation, punishment in this
cumulative Irby lenity applied.
the rule of must be punished for either have been robbery
housebreaking but not both
consecutively.
Thomas WASHINGTON, Jr., H. Appellant,
UNITED America, STATES of Appellee.
No. 20232. Appeals States Court of
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 1967.
Decided Dec. also, D.C.Cir.,
See
Mr. Edward T.
Asst. U. S.
Atty.,
G.
with whom Messrs. David
Bress,
Q.
Atty.,
U.
Frank Nebeker and
S.
Blackwell,
Attys.,
Joel D.
Asst. U. S.
brief,
appellee.
were on the
*
Judge,
Fahy
Before
Chief
Bazelon,
Judges.
and
Circuit
Robinson,
BAZELON,
Judge:
Chief
Appellant
was convicted
robbery,
deadly
rape,
assault with a
weapon.
major
was
His
defense
insan-
ity.
appeal, he
On
contends that
judge
judg-
trial
entered
acquittal by
insanity.
ment of
reason of
always
court has
been
This
judgments
reluctant
order
such
acquittal.1
rooted in
Our reluctance is
insanity
jury’s
nature of the
role
century,
early eighteenth
cases.
In the
the test for
was
the accused
know
“does
* * *
doing,
what he is
no more than
test,
a wild
Under this
beast.”2
jury did not
hear
evaluate
need to
Presumably
complex body
evidence.
a wild
knew
witnesses
Later, Eng
beast when
saw one.
began
lish
on whether
courts
to focus
right
distinguish
accused
between
could
wrong.
began
They
also
hear
testimony.3
landmark
medical
M’Naghten
The
case4 made both
English
part
trends
a standard
M’Naghten, the
American
Under
law.
insanity
the ac
test for
was whether
“laboring
cused
under such a defect
was
mind,
reason,
from disease of the
quality of
not to
know
nature
it,
doing,
or if he did know
what was
doing
he did not know he was
wrong.”5
Washington,
Fletcher,
the term
The use of
Frank U.
Mr.
significant
(appointed by
court)
ap-
“disease of the mind” was
D. C.
firmly
the relevance
pellant.
since it
established
*
Arnold,
Judge Fahy
Rex v.
16 How.St.Tr.
Circuit
became Senior Cir-
(1724).
Judge
April 13,
cuit
1967.
See,
g., King
States,
1.
e.
United
Glueck, op. cit., supra
3.
note
142
U.S.App.D.C. 318,
(1967);
mony
right-wrong
light
meaning.
criter-
its medical
We announced
Soon, however,
began
ion.
doctors
McDonald v. United States that
complain
right-wrong
any
per-
test
illness
abnormal condition
“includes
*3
substantially
inquiry
mitted too
the of
affects
narrow an
into
the mind which
condition,
pre-
processes
or
accused’s
that
mental
substantially
emotional
and which
mental
impor-
presenting
impairs
cluded
from
behavior
con
doctors
10
recognized
may
tant
In Durham
trol.”
medical data.6
v. Unit-
We
that there
States,7
many
why
person’s ability
ed
we announced a
test for be
new
a
reasons
insanity:
criminally
impaired.
“An
or
accused is not
to control
His mental
responsible
may
processes
the
if his unlawful act was
emotional
have been ad
product
versely
by
genetic structure,
of a mental disease or defect.”8
affected
family,
range
physical condition,
the
intended to widen
of ex-
educa
pert
backgrounds.11
the
Thus
order to enable
tional
cultural
jury
jury
“to
all information ad- we
tes
consider
called
the
to “consider
by
timony concerning
development,
vanced
relevant
disci-
the
scientific
9
plines.”
adaptation
proc
functioning
of these
12
esses
controls.”
purpose
fully achieved,
This
was not
today,
largely
insanity
thought
In
the
many people
because
cases
Durham,
prepared
must be
hear
evidence
only
attempt
identify
was
an
concerning
aspects
diverse
of defendant’s
clearly
category
persons—
a
defined
of
judgments
life and then to make difficult
mentally
by
those classified as
ill
regarding
impairment of behavioral
profession
medical
excuse them
—and
By
very
controls.
their
fact,
responsibility.
judgments
pre
nature these
be
cannot
profession
the medical
has no such clear-
Thus,
cise.
within
confines of
ly defined category, and the classifica-
Durham-McDonald standard,
developed
purposes
tions it has
for
of
must
latitude
its
allowed wide
treatment,
commitment, etc.,
in-
judgment
acquittal by
task.
of
reason
appropriate
assessing responsibility
insanity
only
appropriate
of
when a
in criminal cases. Since these classifi-
clearly
guilty
verdict of
vio
would
however, many
familiar,
cations were
late
or the
law
facts.
psychiatrists understandably
them
used
despite
unsuitability.
in court
their
And
say
We cannot
was
this
psychiatrists,
unwittingly,
perhaps
some
Washington’s
situation in
case. The
permitted their own notions about blame district court did not err in its refusal
to determine whether the term mental
acquittal
to enter a
rea
psychoses,
illness should be limited to
insanity.
son of
should include
ders,
disor-
serious behavior
II
virtually
include
men-
all
agree
limited
tal
We all
court’s
abnormalities. To
ensure that
supervising
experts
role in
views of the
the verdict does
not bind
Stephen
124,
U.S.App.D.C. 120,
early complaints
6.
10.
mentions these
History
op
(en
847,
(1962)
banc).
in his 2
the Criminal Law
England
(1866).
of
compilation
124-126
Eor
Psychiatric
11.
there
studies indicate
complaints
of more recent
higher
types
incidence
certain
against
right-wrong test,
Dur-
see
among
illness
certain social class-
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
ham v. United
94
862, 870-874,
Hollingshead
e.g.,
See,
es.
& Red-
228, 236-240,
lich,
and Mental
Ill-
Social Class
A.L.R.2d
passim (1958).
part 3 and
ness,
Supra
7.
note 6.
supra
12. McDonald v.
note
241,
8. Id. at
imply equally super- all of limited interviews with role my opinion part vising put evidence before basis jury. jury’s the examination contrary, rendered To deciding which I conducted at the staff wide latitude the issue of requires judges conference on November trial * * * By appellate judges [constant observation] ensure reports day, I mean 24 hours its base decision on the behavioral physicians data are submitted to the which are relevant determina- behavior, activity disagree, tion actions of blameworthiness.13 We however, quality while on the ward. data in Judge this ease. Robinson and I are Unfortunately, except brief refer- deeply persistent troubled use test, of this to a none ences Rorschach meaningful paucity labels and presented information was *4 presented jury. information Ex- to the psychiatrists The claimed Government perience with the administration have on these based conclusions insanity that, defense has revealed de- studies, they jury only the but told the spite witnesses, the earnest efforts any explanation of without conclusions judges, counsel and are a defects themselves, facts studies recurring problem. We will therefore uncovered, why these facts and studies describe them detail section. conclusions. led Judge Fahy will state his on this views information, There other available was separate concurring matter opinion. a well, not told which the was psychia- defense Washington about. twelve When was trist, Adland, solely Dr. on was based a thirteen, he was committed Cedar one hour and fifteen minute interview Knolls, the District of School Columbia with defendant. Dr. Adland did not Apparently the for Children. records of electroencephalogram, administer neuro- lengthy his- institution contained a logical, physical tests, and not did tory Washington’s At childhood. reports have the benefit of of the tests first, into defense counsel moved them given Hospital. at Saint He Elizabeths evidence, re- but later he withdrew that requested permission them, to see thought quest, perhaps because permission was denied. tactically make unwise to long report. Since the read such Whatever a defendant was at Saint reason, Hospital to make months, Elizabeths forced was two any psychiatrists two historical back- op- Government decision without had its an ground portunity prolonged for more on defendant. observa- tion. Yet both Dr. and Ham- Owens Dr. significant underlying The omission of they man testified that had seen Wash- in the tes- information was one defect ington approximately same timony. Another was was amount of time as Dr. Adland. Of subjected confusing often to a mass course, they did have the benefit of the philosophical and abstract discussion testing performed by and observations lawyer disputation fruitless and between Hospital. at others As Dr. Owens psychiatric witness about labels explained: jargon. Dr. testi- Hamman’s entire patient When mony a is under constant ob- examination was that direct servation, Washington “passive- examinations that were did not have conducted in aggressive St. personality,” Elizabeth’s not suffer did psychiatrists, laboratory studies, psy- disturbance,” any “personality trait chological examinations, service, impulse,” social did not have “an irresistible analogous sibility agency Our role here is our role con- is to ensure that process. in the policies. administrative The ad- siders all the facts and relevant agency given ministrative lati- wide We have similar vis-a-vis making judgments. respon- tude in Our pas- mentally ill,” personality in a was not “ab- will also behave was “not standpoint psy- normal from the manner. sive which the defendant was was chiatric Dr. Owens’ participated had have a A. fect. opinion ? Q. formed familiar with the All It was * * * illness.” A substantial mental disease or mental right. in a staff conference my opinion And what was about him. was defendant, had that he discussed, similar. He part of did de- very orderly considered to be ties. That sification of For to details and work that the individual has. sive-aggressive.” Generally speaking lawyers [******] This example, physicians are all where we is, they compulsive personali- organized type of This type are get things very is more the term personality. out personality meticulous fashion. generally are or in a “pas- clas- con- He testified also defendant aggressive that the did or to have an sidered to be aggressive personality. impulse” not have “an irresistible If rape, “passive-aggressive did passive not, they cannot be real [sic] personality,” any and that in job. event some- really do an “passive-aggressive person- one with a aggressive. Every- They have to be ality” necessarily “mentally ill.” *5 personality. I body type of has a mean, you categorized to some- meaning Even these labels had where. witnesses,14 the meaning was use- less unless was communi- explanations Other cast serious doubt jury. Explanation cated to the at- was many experts’ the basis for tempted it but often more confus- was expressed conclusions as in their labels. ing clarifying. explain- than Dr. Owens example, For Dr. did not think Owens “passive-aggressive person- ed that a “impulse rape.” the defendant had an ality” explanation: “I it Here is his think was type personality is a indi- impulse that an rape. It not an an im- has, is, everybody vidual has pulse with a to have sexual relations some-type personality. it, lady agree We all have and if she did with type a I why, they mean no one Hamman personality. forced her.” Dr. personality. no agreed Washington has We have some did not an type. Well, you may say per- impulse rape. schizoid irresistible But here sonality, compulsive personality, or impulse” is what “irresistable meant speaking you ask, of the one that Dr. Hamman: aggressive passive per- such [as] Q. irresistible, Isn’t this almost sonality, these are broken down into act he situa- antisocial when categories. two different urge? with tion way A. Not from the I understand aggressive. passive One and one impulse. An irresistible irresistible Usually people aggressive impulse me that there is a means to manner, type aggressive acts out in an behavior conflict the unwanted major
to either minor or stressful sit- through. think there I do not breaks uations, maneuver under close Washington. is a conflict in Mr. confinement under or strict rules regulations except maneuvering into a theory Q. But, of con- without the psychosis. conflict, flict, isn’t it without the generally with It he is in the situation considered fact contact, passive type aggressive type urge he can- or the for sexual aggressive frequently stop? or sometimes an passim Menninger, The Balance 5 and See K. Vital sug- just Well, psychological A. He has he will do it. examinations “general stop. gested person no desire to intellectual others,” ability, feelings little with Q. power stop no ? He has person acts antisocial a way, “who out A. That is correct. control his desires has little over Q. And, doctor, isn’t it a fact that * * * guilt little and * * * needs power stop he has no an irresistible wrong. things not feel does impulse ? ” * * * these facts obscured were I A. Not as understand it. dispute person about Q. you And it understand from a “soeiopathie symptomology” is or legal terminology? “mentally is not ill.” IA. from understand both Again again was diverted terminology psychiatric and from a evidence of defendant’s under- terminology. lying mental and emotional difficulties emphasis phrases. eonclusory Washing- Dr. Owens testified also that vigorously After defense counsel cross- difficulty controlling ton’s his sexual brought examined Dr. Owens and out impulses “voluntary did not affect his some facts which indicated that Wash- controls.” ington’s emotional Q. impulse Didn’t this have sex- impaired, of control have been voluntary ual affect relations be- prosecuting attorney rehabilitated havior controls? witness as follows: No, think, A. think I would not so. Q. Notwithstanding history, policeman, say, had a witnesses doctor, thorough study and after that if he and men had two three been Washington, you of Mr. are of the going lady. rape had and there suffering that was not thirty present, been other men where August 9, a mental illness on is that overpower force *6 correct? woman, would have that backed That is correct. lady A.. off for another somewhere else raped. to have regard In this Dr. Hamman’s testi- say impairs I think I when mony epitomized the trial. whole At voluntary control, say I would that times his was more favorable it did not. psy- to the defendant than the defense testimony. According chiatrist’s to Dr. thought Washington Dr. Hamman that Hamman, Washington had a twelve or “psychiatrically was normal.” Then he year history aggressive thirteen be- added, “The best definition of normal I “very regard havior. He has little person have ever is heard is not too * * * people. he And when wants neurotic.” something, takes he it.” “He has a These labels and tendency definitions were not withdrawn, to be does relate merely persistent uninformative. Their people, stay by tends to himself.” “He jury’s use served to distract the atten- Washington impulses.” act out his “Mr. underlying tion from the few facts which much [does control.” “He is have] example, were very aggressive mentioned. For the fact a individual.” Ham- Dr. Washington’s agreed “in Washington difficulties relat- man “does not ing adequately people to other any brakes, things are more stop him average severe or more extreme doing than the antisocial acts” that “he [person’s]” dispute power was immersed in a stop.” has no under- these classify about lying whether diffi- by disputes facts were muddied “personality defect,” “per- culties as a a and terminology about conclusions medical and sonality problem,” “personality a person dis- a —about order,” “disease,” “illness,” a neurotic,” “normal” if he not “too simply “type personality.” a Washington about whether was suffer- whether he was sonality tible about whether aggressive gression tomology,” about whether order,” posed he ing has from a impulses,” to “traits a indicated that he difficulty,” merely “schizoid or whether antisocial “neurosis,” he suffered “he has about whether “personality “sociopath,” had personality” “personality sociopathic symp- schizoid activity,” instead “he about whether from “irresis- had problems,” nature,” as “char- about “per- dis- has ag- op- upon the not? A. No. A. Q. Doctor, this. Q. much Q. [******] chronically You He Yes. He takes problem do I history an emotional do wouldn’t not think he is ill. ill? think that Mr. he you he is ill at all? himself cripple, wants. Washington say, based about is he information have had to focus this ished crosses which dealt ination acter aggressive sonality er than defendant was not mean, him, mation come sexual background Q. Now, Whatever fendant prosecutor opportunity disorder,” : is it still out pattern the [a illness on you a series background, acts were caused a result of all of this here, personality] the mere fact provided by Dr. opportunity have assembled according asked on somewhat and about whether your opinion and a August entirely way suffering materially redirects do very disorder.” he redirect to what has you reacts, with labels. 1965 ? interesting underlying concerning Hamman, a weird feel —I dimin- exam- infor- “per- rath- de- re- And take you will take what he wants even been to, he is A. Q. Well, now, in the field of A. A. emotionally crippled, A. Q.- “can’t,” *Q. Q. He [******] doing? finally, wants to. indicated that Now, No. Well, Yes. No. what he asked, mentally * * has you just now, on redirect: will or in a conflict. imply wants. The cannot control what he sex, ill? the mere fact ask again mere reply this defendant that he would does that you does that when fact this. to a I don’t You mean he question you say that he if it is think mean he is will like *7 I do think mentally A. That is correct. not ill?
he was. A. No.15 attorney responded re- The defense on Judge It seems and clear Robinson cross : persistent conclusory me that the use of Q. Doctor, he jury still has this behavior get- may labels in hindered the have problem problem underlying facts.__But~w.e_ and the control ting the right? urges, these sexual tbinlr enough jury the obtained fhat preclude hesitating IA. I concrete information to usJxom am because want disturbing psy- possible. the much as The defense condense this as verdict. and, society. problems He chiatrist on pross-fixaiwnatwn.J-.he has in He does psychiatrists gave problem himself, some and Government have ripfondafft’s meaningful my opin- descriptions I think mental illness —it processes and as em- ion mental of mental emotional one illness concurring Judge b'ihy’s phasized problems iir" and the he between [sic] recognize may Moreover, it out he we himself. He act and herein. whole, that, think taken the do not he not. arguments lawyers aggravated the This seems the 15. Both confusion practice. by emphasizing the usual to be the conflict labels anything, was, respective case a little better the roles of and the expert19 insanity by reducing jury emphasis than that most cases. Under the the circumstances, conclusory thought in- reversal seems labels. We the new therefore, conclude, appropriate. test announced in Durham allow expert testify the conviction should be affirmed. the in medical terms profession. familiar to him and to his
Ill
longer
The
would no
be forced to
conclusory
focus on the
labels used
agree
We all
more
effort
expert.
the
in future
that the
needed
cases
ensure
that,
Soon after Durham we found
upon
issue
decided
although
being given
was
more
Unfortunately,
sufficient
information.
information,
emphasis
still too much
was
history
easy
we
no
solution. The
being
placed
the labels used
insanity
jurisdic
defense in this
psychiatrist, upon
whether he con-
conclusory
tion shows that
misuse of
cluded
did or
defendant
did not
always
labels has
been a
con
central
have a “mental
illness.”
Carter v.
M’Naghten test,
cern.
we
which
above,16
again
pointed
out
quote
States20
had
designed
two major defects.
that Durham was
to eliminate
First,
encouraged psychiatrists
labeling.
kind
say
the defendant knew
“wrong.”
“right” from
Unexplained
terms which have
medical
labels—schizo-
mpriiV.p]
particular
-no
phrenia, paranoia,
mpgnjqjr
psychosis, neurosis,
Conse
quently,
psychiatrist’s
enough.
psychopathy
because the
at
De-
—are
judgments
scription
explanation
tention was focused on these
of the ori-
facts,
not on
gin, development
medical
and manifestations
perhaps
alleged
was diverted from and
even
of the
are the chief
disease
deprived
knowledge.
expert
of his
Sec
functions
witness. The
expert’s
ond,
perhaps
important,
more
chief value of an
field,
right-wrong
required psychiatrists
fields,
test
in this
as in all other
rests
.upon
to make a moral
about
material
which his
from
argued
reasoning
defendant.
It has often been
oninion is
tne
fashioned and
guise
expert,
in the
psychia
progresses
from nis ma-
juror,
trist became the thirteenth
terial —to—his—coirdu&Tuiu—in—tfe»
explanation
unfortunately
important
the most
ox file disease and its
one.17
Thus,
“right
wrong”
dynamics,
labels of
is,
occurred,
how it
de-
precluded
considering
all
veloped, and
affected the
the relevant
information
en
defendant;
and also
emotional
couraged
psychiatrist
impose
expression
not lie in
it does
his mere
* * *
judgment upon
moral
of conclusion.
Durham was
jury.18
proper
intended to restrict
to their
In Part I
steps
we described the
taken
part played by
medical function the
Durham
and McDonald to
enable
jury to consider
all
relevant informa-
experts.21
about
tion
warning
defendant. Durham and
This
effective
*8
McDonald
attempts
clarify
were
enough,
also
to
so in McDonald v. United
accompanying
5, supra.
616-618;
16. See
States,
text
note
Durham v. United
su
pra
6,
U.S.App.D.C.
236-240,
note
94
at
See,
g.,
supra
2,
17.
note
at
e.
Glueck,
at
214 F.2d
869-874.
34; Suarez,
Critique
Psychia-
A
the
Expert
trist’s
Witness,
Role as
12 J.
“expert”
necessarily
19. The term
is not
172,
(1967);
FOR.SCI.
177
Address
psychiatrists.
e.g.,
See,
limited to
Jen
Dershowitz, Psychiatry
Prof. Alan M.
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
kins v.
Legal
Process:
That Cuts
Knife
F.2d
ways,
Both
Harvard Law School Ses-
Supra
20.
quiecentennial
note 18.
Celebration, Sept. 23, 1967.
States,
18. See
Carter v. United
21.
102 U.S.
Id. at
difficult ones in other meaning negligence given antitrust, their to the defendant.30 from to 29. The bels in the has been criticized for not intelligible gence” at “fault” not exercised “mental disease or defect” tions. ness is instructed that marily by stands. met some standard of reasonable conduct. tion to make his method ment of tary phrase chiatric stand guidance negligence define technical proceedings. technical and evaluative of scientific “should court knowledge rected medical officers Justice ed. der. The kind, is not bound ular sis tion, a 1963). diagnosis approximate lay equivalents, or, conclusion the Soviet limited to what it Law phrase diagnostic them.” Department Similarly, is similar to other while never hesitate reports A comfortable with Defense, a terms are admissible even because we (blameworthy?), laymen person vague expert, limitations the U.S.S.R. law. For “due involving represents. “mental disease jargon” “The of the defendant’s Moreover, based on other considera- conclusions Union, jury. which the esoteric and experience.” label on a we can label wants (approved draft care,” to be told Psychiatry diagnosis court” witness unavoidable, “negligent” understand that In courts to admit before given in court martial to avoid “the use employ it is Defense conclusions of a terms. example, “negli- accept or if he has not a though 322-323 conclusory does not giving enough mental disor- and that he if concept content or a expert should use needs reject psy- regard we under- techniques too if he has Depart- Berman, in Mili- which if he is “obliga- defect” diagno- partic- swiftly 1967). condi- many term (rev. help help wit- pri- like la- di- it if it a ion can rise Every ioned” and late is for trist who obsessive by this,” convey meaning “translated” vised cross-examination, subject of the where their first it is sel’s concrete changing large contribute permitted so skilled 277-78, sel. explain opinion. The value of an which example, of deterioration experts other taking counsel. can material of trials ble and ed role (Burger, It [*] premises present is at all of his medical observations only the trial If extent of these him to technical [the data led to the jury, care of there is meaningful. so fully lawyers urge them, J., dissenting).] a compulsive type” explanation If trial [*] followed gives This in terms which are in the forensic art vocabulary more to duty psychiatric] opinion is fash- rare no on which it is based. “psychoneurotic stay elicit, judge patients. “insanity” point explore is the steps by accepted by lay terms of description a tests, fault inept medical witness is to want higher U.S.App.D.C. 597 at 614-15 [*] counsel comes into at laymen. “the by out of the this society either witness [Campbell breakdown where area observations in terms which the views draw interrogation a down-to-earth adequately a than the which material “what I diagnosis and means, diagnosis, for hospital post cases [*] fail expert and fails to ought be well develop if he psychiatry. A trial coun- out can trial coun- direct or play. presence reaction, intelligi- psychia- v. Unit- that he is to who (1962) jurors trans- would mean to opin- facts [*] from were even raw ad- It
455
as,
labels,
problem
clearly
such
The
defect.” Or we could
instruct
the
defect,”
expert
judgments
“product”
or
“mental disease
to stick to
and
medical
and
legal-moral
judgments
jury.
these
Because
leave
is even more difficult.
to the
legal
employed
for
in
test
labels are
the
strong minority
of this
danger
responsibility,
the
there is a
that
consistently
court has
advocated
psychiatric
as a
them
witness will view
psychiatrists
prohibited
testify
be
from
legal-moral
rather
than a medical matter.
ing
alleged
the
offense was
possible
There
two
solutions.
“product”
illness,
the
of mental
since
testimony
simply prohibit
could
in terms
part
this is
of the ultimate issue to be
“product”
by
jury.31
and
disease
adopt
“mental
decided
We now
judicial supervision may
especially
practice
The need for
label”
of allow-
heightened by
ing
psychiatrist
be
adversary system
“breakdown” of
to tell
cases,
act,
in these
a fail
the defendant’s
for which he is on
largely by
complexity
trial,
“product”
ure caused
is
of mental
issue,
indigency
defendant,
of the
disease. The
is
reason
obvious: when
States,
qualified expert psychiatrist
or both. See Jackson
United
v.
with the
adopt
supra
[concurring opinion
professional
standing,
note 25
mantle of
U.S.App.D.C. 324, 331,
degrees
high
F.
calling,
ed in 122
353
medical
in a
tells
862,
(1965)].
2d
charged
869
if the
Even
adver
the act
system
sary
viable,
“product”
any
were more
our hold
“mental disease” he
ing
sup
point
amply
stating
on this
would be
a conclusion that
the de-
ported by
expert opinion
ought
the rule that
guilty.
be
As
fendant
found
it,
witness,
in
should have an ascertainable
basis
I view
no
or other-
See,
e.g.,
wise,
fact.
Rollerson v. United
be
should ever
allowed to state
* * *
States, supra
U.S.App.D.C.
24,
note
119
that conclusion
ato
401-402,
suggest
at
contending
F.2d at
and ma
270-271
343
also that
therein;
psychiatrists
terials cited
States, supra
Hawkins v. United
counsel
are for-
1,
U.S.App.D.C.
“easy way” by
note
114
bidden
take the
testi-
46-47,
851-852; Calloway
fying
310 F.2d at
on
causal connection
terms
supra
States,
25,
compel
“product”
very
v.
App.D.C.
U.S.
United
note
106
of
compliance
fact will
1,
opinion
at 142 n.
F.2d
n.
270
at 335
unanimous
our
* * *
1;
U.S.App.
States,,
v.
Winn
106
in Carter
133,
326,
(1959);
135,
practice
270
pernicious
allowing
D.C.
F.2d
328
The
Stores,
Fine,
Giant Food
Inc.
opinions
v.
106 U.S.
“product”
the conclusion
App.D.C. 95,
(1959);
experts, apart
Blunt
vices,
F.2d 542
269
other
has
its
States,
U.S.App.D.C. 266,
operated
v. United
100
to narrow and constrict
275,
355,
(1957);
244 F.2d
scope
psychiatric
364
Raub v.
when
Carpenter,
App.D.C. 505,
scope.
512-513
17
what we want is
broaden that
* * *
(1901), aff’d,
161,
159,
psychia-
U.S.
187
23 S.Ct.
The function of the
72,
(1902);
jurors
try
U.S.
S.Ct.
opinion testimony,
States,
(1935);
would exclude
nent of
v. United
92
Simmons
conclusion,
122,
(1953);
26.
U.S.App.D.C.
Id. at
kind
F.2d 427
206
pro-
“product”
U.S.App.D.C.
If
about
were
Deaver v. United
81
hibited,
then,
(1946);
not sim-
148,
reason would
F.2d
Henkel v.
155
740
part
ply
197,
Varner,
U.S.App.D.C.
it
the ultimate con-
be that
F.2d
78
138
Capital
(1943);
and moral
clusion but
v.
Transit
Grober
934
psychiatrists
(D.C.D.C.1954).
Co.,
F.Supp.
about which
conclusion
expertise
experts
Engle
Stull,
U.S.App.
have no more
other
And cf.
supra
jurors.
Suarez,
J.,
(1967) (Fahy,
note
than
See
classified with this term “normal”—is he normal? excerpt opinion’s In addition to the Well, depends, you A a lot if mean explanation “pas- from Dr. Owens’ by “normal,” no mental that he has sive-aggressive personality,” which illness, then he would be normal views, clarify seems to me to my opinion. explanation. I doctor went further dislike to you burden the mean normal However testimony, lengthy quotations being socially from his behavior, acceptable, Thus, but do need following to be indicative. then he would not be normal. during appears his examina- pursued This was in ordi- still further tion: nary language explanation. Q Now, doctor, you Mr. do feel that When the doctor used the term “socio- Washington any personality de- has pathic symptomology” he was asked its defect? meaning replied: A Not in the sense of “defect.” By sociopath, we mean an indi- prefer say personality vidual who is antisocial. is a That difficulty getting problems, that is a type personality *15 who acts out in along adjusting, probably or way, an anti-social has little control experiences difficulties that lating adequately in re- he over desires and his needs. people to other are constantly being repetitiously He is more or more severe extreme than the activity. average person in has involved He has. guilt. He little does not feel that Q say Is it accurate to that he has things only wrong. The time he are personality disorder? gets wrong feels it is is when he generally prefer A I would not caught. say “disorder,” you say because when Q anxiety? Little “disorder,” you this denotes mean Very They usually something wrong, A little. act that is a disease out, I in an anti-social manner or an illness or some disorder. behave they get anxiety. prefer say before would that he has personality, type personality. Q Rape is consistent with a soeio-
Q pathic personality, type you personality is not that correct? What do think he has? Any A crime would be consistent sociopaths My opinion with it. There are who A he would that was be sociopaths commit do crimes and who generally generally or de- would not. schizoid, is, scribed as somewhat difficulty relating people. he has During testimony for Dr. Hamman’s gets angry asked, He if he does not the United he was States “Could way. you spend psycho-dynamic He tends at times to tell us terms how alone, you Washington’s difficulty analyze person- his time or has relat- Mr. ing people aggression ality?” responded: He with some record, 1. As to the Cedar have no basis Knolls ate and well considered. I press concluding clear that counsel’s decision not that a different decision for helpful its admission evidence deliber been to defendant. would have individual, them, it is different matter. A think he is an but I Hamman, my opinion he an individual who both wit- Doctors Owens and Government, readily impulses. con- He does does have nesses for regard by defendant, impulsive very little ceded conduct drives. hasWho urge; he some- but people. the thing, And wants “lack of in his sexual when brakes” due men- not he takes it. in their this was picture personality think he A Yes. A Yes. [******] Q He Q Psychiatrically Q will he act has a will impulses, strongly ? Mr. disorder? act out these personality Washington, considering difficulty impulses? don’t strong, you from criminal of such court that we should seek other ality standable tal amounted mental saw defendants’ weakness disease and it. weakness which hand, responsibility. I think it was language was a character evidence responsibility, they explained in under- disease did situation fairly I not decide whether sexual agree improvement, excusing him absolve or, put matters person- on the to the they him inform the and that the witnesses should jury clearly personality he A No. I think meaning medi- they are problems. But I don’t think opin- terms, for their and of the basis cal ions; call I would marked to the extent that say- justified in I do not feel neurotic. them character ing labels, con- when the use of you Q I don’t understand testimony, left sidered with all the you explain? mean, doctor. Would ease. confused adjusted Well, he best person in the world. Part III vidual, illness. acter a neurosis. A He is a [******] think he shows I do disorder, justify a there is no do not think think he has personality very diagnosis question about that. aggressive symptoms that disorder, of a char- has—I a mental indi- do tion the court’s clinical to our unanimous of the law in this There in sibility. I have no deciding between test, pointed the analysis to made clear to particular a courtroom issue out the jurisdiction McDonald decision. of criminal comment needed distinc- development test and *16 respon- led this which is character. caused you pression ? degree do is caused It A It A [******] Q Doctor, Q Q No? seems want And Absolutely Look, aggressive behavior, in by is of to me the to call this illness reaching your isn’t this caused—no. I a by anything sociopathie isn’t our right. personality witnesses’ it personality, not know whether behavior, aall diagnostic nature ? question or not. any which explana- problem directly by of our im- us of is basis for the jury substantial abstract give developed our decision to a detract guage (2) (1) mental disease or As to this give view I think it I have no is also advised in understandable But do is his from the on the ultimate opinion likely that to I opinion factual basis permitting the part opinion in probable difficulty not wish to decide in exact permit the particular of as by defect, provided the the is to the the undue as matters issue, explained terms and in opinion “product” of which witness; existence adhering psychiatrist case, witness tending weight of I to in the in have add: lan- the the the ex- of to to opinions plaining the relation of the disease of their understand- tions were by charged, defect, any, might persuaded conduct not be able. One support- case,” independent evidence find it useful the witness or de- ing disease language, of mental speak the existence in use “causal” issue required causal “product” fect before connec- term in reason tion, For the same reached. I alone would for reason not whole product issue is or causal past, in the find error. We not issue, a com- now, of ultimate I do not construe factors, 498, the factor bination of two Spaulding, 293 U.S. States 617, its relation mental condition and of to bar 79 L.Ed. 55 S.Ct. of charged. important, type such The More case. act such in this of matter of Spaulding to a was does not relate there was issue knowledge as to totally permanently or observation common within disabled psychiatry does not meaning in- in policy of which the a federal of knowledge superior re- to that often have The record was surance and statute. it “lay mind.” True plete or uneducated as to with factual evidence laymen must form physical and his activities. condition judgment re- on the issue of The issue of total Court stated that disability sponsibility, not bar permanent the ulti- does was forming by jury, such assistance question to decided mate specially qualified by person opin- question as a was resolved to be ought experience psychi- evidence, experts education and ion and the might atry problem as afford. Such a to have asked or allowed state been like a case of we now consider is not conclusions “on the case.” whole Spaulding. physical disability, particular ruling, scope as was The of this how- given ever, I I have the While think for reason is indicated the decisions cites, expert ordinarily tes- avoid Court of which Milwaukee & St. language tifying “product,” Ry. Kellogg, I Paul Co. v. 94 U.S. do not think is barred There such L.Ed. 256 is illustrative. Spaulding. Court said: subject inquiry proposed join requirement I in the an instruc- observation, upon a matter of common witness, referred in Part tion to the lay which the uneducated mind opinion. III me This seems to capable forming judgment. helpful development very desirable and regard matters, experts to such are judges hope which I as well trial ' permitted to state their conclusions. counsel and witnesses will welcome. questions opinions On of science their than the ex- assume substance rather received, questions in such appears act form of instruction as superior scientific men knowl- Appendix A would suffice. edge, generally think alike. Not upon the A few remarks are offered knowledge. inso matters common reference to blameworthiness court’s And see our own case of Henkel v. Var- Blame, judgment. in the sense and moral *17 ner, U.S.App.D.C. 197, 78 138 934. F.2d responsibility, extent of criminal present In where, case not attach under stand- does product applicable in terms of or not to insan- cause ards to the defense of ity,3 jury state an “the conclusion on whole least a reasonable meaning phrased, 2. As to the of these terms are to a borderline case can relationship nothing one other more than a moral see just unjust States, U.S.App. Carter v. or to blame United defend- ** Dur- 227, 236, 608, he did In D.C. 252 F.2d ant for what 617. require ham that our we said traditions Holloway States, 3. In criminal acts v. United U.S. where the otherwise product App.D.C. 3, referring in of a men- stem from and are “moral blame tests of criminal tal disease or defect shall attach, cases, ap will not be these the court said that not and hence there they plication tests, responsibility.” of “these however a mind from that the act stemmed doubt any defect mental free disease Hastings, HULL, Ann Ann a/k/a causally the com- related to which Appellant, moral this basic mission of the act. But by juries. by society, not decision is made America, UNITED STATES acting through Society, law, has estab- Appellee. insanity, re- lished defense No. 20413. responsi- lieves the of criminal accused Appeals States Court of bility for an act which results Circuit. District of Columbia
mental disease defect.4 Whether par- in a this defense is established Argued Sept. 1967. decision to ticular case is a factual Decided Jan. bearing made on the evidence of the accused mental condition and on the relation of that condition charged. reaching this
the conduct In
factual is aware that decision respon- blame—to extent of criminal sibility will not attach under or—will very perhaps law. sense limited jury’s can decision be said to be judgment, only
moral because the jury’s factual decision does or does coverage
bring the defendant within moral decision. The law’s respect-
called ing to decide on evidence insanity.
the defense of express by
not free to its verdict its view ap-
of blame or morals unrelated to its
praisal of the evidence on the issue of in-
sanity. generally, only Juries cases, they are influenced what think right just the context of they
facts and law of the case decide. only Their task is different here because required often in these cases subjective
amake difficult and factual person’s
decision about the state of a
mind, particular and its relation to con- duct, person’s “a subtle issue of a respon-
condition in relation to criminal sibility.” Douglas v. United
U.S.App.D.C. 232, 239,
It was this nature of the issue no doubt Holloway, swpra led n. court 3, to state that in a “borderline case” the
application nothing of the tests “can be
more than a moral it is just unjust blame the defendant * * *» U.S.App.D.C. 228, 242, 4. See Durham