United States of America Ex Rel. Roy Schuster, Relator-Appellant v. Ross E. Herold, M.D., Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Dannemora, New York

charges corruption. prison At ster’s MOORE, and Before KAUFMAN during no time of his several course FEINBERG, Judges. Circuit state and federal actions has sanity adequately been de- Schuster’s KAUFMAN, R. Circuit IRVING termined. Judge: For the reasons we shall set way have, thankfully, long We come a forth, that before a believe ignorance days from when induced may be transferred to a state institution great mentally fear of ill. strides As criminals, for insane he must be afforded knowledge psychiatric par- in have been substantially procedural the same safe by evolving concepts proc- alleled of due guards provided in civil commit are ess, procedures for the humane commit- proceedings, including proper ment ex mentally ment treatment of the ill and amination, notice, hearing period- upon replaced pits have snake and witch hunts. commitment, review of the need for and long passed The time has since when by jury. trial If these result “possessed by charge mere was Roy in a determination that Schuster is automatically demons” would result sane, he returned to should be Clinton insanity. banishment for Prison, eligible for where he will be recently parole. observer As an allegations proceed- Petitioner’s noted, criminal “twice cursed” —as ing weighed against must be this back- mentally not be ill—should and ground gradual development. These of be “punished” “crime” allegations, un- are main serving coming while sick contested, may briefly summarized: Morris, The Confusion prison sentence. In while incarcerated in Clinton Analysis Syndrome: An of Confinement Prison, Roy expressed Schuster his Mentally 111Crimi of the Confinement “corruption” belief in the existence of Depart nals and Ex-Criminals prison Shortly administration. of New of the State ment of Correction thereafter, solely strength of a (1968) York, [herein 17 Buff.L.Rev. prison finding doctor’s the Schuster’s Morris]. after cited as charges paranoid evidenced “the idea that [prison] personnel members of the I. against him,” Schuster was transferred Hospi- Clinton to Dannemora State and Trial Schuster’s Crime Criminally tal for the Insane. ac- 1920’s, Roy During was Schuster cordance with law then as it performing tap-dancer, stood, a successful Schuster was afforded no mean- ingful His earn- sanity, nation. theaters across the the issue his ings the standards permitted was were considerable assistance day, reaching counsel, given week. opportunity over $200 was no to call Milwaukee, through witnesses, Schu- his On one tour own was no advance love, girl, ster, fell in pro- then met a notice of the nature marry agreed to courtship ceedings, after a brief and was transferred to Danne- her, although that she twenty-four insisted he later mora within after he hours man at pregnant by another first seen doctor. 10T4 alleg- inducement, lawyer’s to her

time. At his wife’s office. stage edly pleaded Amy’s lawyer, settled down “Will abandoned the you chance, Accordingly, please give family. let me raise a me Way- explain prove to became a Let me dance instructor at Ned situation? substantially you you dancing money. put me I If burn’s school at a industrious, jail salary. Being Monday, you put diminished will me out future, however, destroy my business. You was able increase will you weekly approximately make me income will commit suicide.” $150. tragic peroration With that he drew Depression. Then came the pocket. .32 caliber from his revolver income was cut then cut $75 Bedlam ensued in the chaos Schuster again again to as little at a week. $11 wounding lawyer fired several shots her in, As the creditors closed the romance killing his wife. evaporated. and wife Schuster his Subsequently, indicted Schuster was quarreled frequently he even accused and degree. for in de- murder first His the neglect adultery her of and of their fense he carried the re- was that had daughter age. Coleen, years then of three committing the of volver with intention separated, reconciled, sep- The two and his suicide. He insisted that wife’s again. up- arated so Schuster became lawyer lunged gun for the when Schuster separation set when the formal action pocket the drew it from that at his attempted was commenced he in of moment a state Schuster was responded his suicide. Mrs. to Schuster “panic” and not of what was was aware by securing distress court a order di- according- happening. gun, his to The recting pay Schuster a fixed sum for trial, testimony the somehow was support family. the he his Soon discharged in all the excitement. payments found the burdensome days. difficult to meet in those But lean “panic” To the rebut claim Amy pressed payments. Schuster her for expert state introduced evidence In settlement discussions she insisted suffering any Schuster was not from that she would take no less than $40 psychiatric mental disease. state’s week, no matter how little Schuster was Lichtenstein, expert, Perry then Dr. M. earning. City Physician Prison, Resident Finally, repeatedly Mrs. Schuster denied threatened was suf- Schuster jailed fering contempt any have her husband for from form of delusion lasting pay. if Faced with disease. After trial he not did week, prison, jury guilty equivalent found of the debtor’s Schuster distraught. degree. He murder in second On No- Schuster became more years 2, 1931, Schuster, pleaded if she went vember then 27 wife that with his old, plan, term of from he lose was sentenced to a ahead with her would twenty-five years just .opened life. he had small studio dance irrevocably ruined no benefit and be anyone. During the course settle- Imprisonment A. acrimony mounted ment discussions the Sing Sing Schuster was sent first on sev- threatened Schuster suicide and then transferred 1935 to Clinton in agreed Amy Finally, eral occasions. good State Prison. There he made a morning meet to discuss him one adjustment. taught “cell-study” He securing contempt order front high equiva- leading course to a school Street, York where of 51 Chambers lency degree, a letter and even received Amy’s Roy’s lawyers main- both from Board tained offices. commending Education him work. for his planned. events, In the and his wife met as normal course Schuster might They lawyer’s expected time office to serve his went first to his They eligible proceeded parole then and to be not in. was breathtaking simplicity: a with “He old to build was when was still too conversation, very But, circumstantial life. life took another new talkative, wrong complained bitterly. He turn for him. Schuster became was * * * paranoid prison, suspicious.. corruption convinced of writing particularly reported man part This of the official was regarding charge program. cowardly letters education attacks made against expression personnel to his him His led re- of this belief Hospital quested something it. transfer to Dannemora State be done about Although Criminally paranoid his letters he Insane. shown the charges personnel idea “buried members of against prevent attempted him him him.” alive” in Dr. Caswell bringing light, diagnosis corruption further of Schuster’s con- except the district dition court was unconvinced the understandable corruptly motivated. observation that was “de- pressed.” Although state contends that there was no cor- the certificate ex- ruption, plicitly requested that Schuster was and is information “paranoid” “violent, upon patient whether and that his insistence dan- * * * gerous, prime destructive, excited, existence evi- scandal suicidal,” dence of homicidal or his delusion. Dr. Caswell did indicate Schuster exhibited Sep- Schuster entered Dannemora symptoms. these age tember of Now at the years old, languishes he there. still Hearing B. in the District Court to Dannemora provisions of with the of accorded hearing Judge Port, At the before Law, McKin- Correction Schuster in he testified met ney’s Consol.Laws, then c. as doctors, with two Dr. Caswell and provided read.1 section for auto- physician That from Hos- Dannemora State upon of matic transfer the certification pital very appears for what to single prison prisoner doctor period. warning brief Schuster had no opinion was “in his insane.” Schuster’s the interview to determine was certificate, signed by commitment Lea- sanity. his He testified that the two M.D., Caswell, physician man H. “diag- doctors devoted of most their Prison, qualifications in Clinton whose persuading nostic” efforts him to psychiatry we unable determine charges. recant his This conversa- sketchily us, from the record only “hearing” before tion was the Schuster single conversation summarized his received. At no time was he afforded prisoner, on to remark and went opportunity with an to cross-examine perintendent superintend- Law 383 then 1. New York Correction thereof. Such prisoner read: ent shall receive the into such hospital, IN PRISONERS “TRANSFER OF and retain him there until le- PRISONS, gally discharged. super- REFORMATORIES STATE The warden or intendent, AND IN transferring AND PENITENTIARIES before such insane prisoner, DE- MALE FOR THE INSTITUTION shall see that he in a is state of bodily DAN- provided TO DELINQUENTS FECTIVE [and cleanliness is with a clothing HOSPITAL. —When- NEMORA STATE new suit of similar fur- that discharge psychiatrist physician or the ever the nished to on their any prisons, prison]. reformatories one of the state At the time of such trans- penitentiaries fer, or or of the institution there shall be transmitted to the su- certify delinquents perintendent hospital original shall male defective of such superintendent thereof, the warden or certificate of conviction and the certifi- prisoner insanity physician therein and sen- a male confined cate of executed felony, psychiatrist, thereto for a tenced or committed which shall be filed in opinion insane, is, superintendent in such warden or the office of such superintendent shall cause shall file a notice of such transfer in the department Dannemora to be transferred to the office of the of correction.” hospital and delivered to the medical su- any step an honorable present able to into evidence or to doctors * *” * job “diagnosis” of kind to contradict doctors, neither these two general It that there is is to be noted know, had so whom far as agreement need not in is Schuster its con- expertise psychiatry. And at hearing At the custodial detention. sign testified, clusion, told he he was below, his be- characterized Dr. Gorlicki proceed- transcript page a twelve ing “Very quiet. hospital havior at being its permitted to read without Cooperative. any prob- been Has never represented not contents.2 by Schuster management. lem He never during proceedings, al- counsel insulting anyone.” been Asked adjournment though requested he being cross-examination if Schuster nothing legal is secure assistance. There criminally confined as insane because indicates record before us which misbehavior, “No, replied he the Doctor ex- ever the doctor from Dannemora good As matter behaves [sic]. pressed any opinion com- on Schuster’s very person. is fact He is a useful he mitment. keeps hospital he from the isolated indicated, have be- would As Schuster himself, and seldom converses eligible parole he had come any request officers. He makes never present sit- His remained in Clinton. something.” unless he needs different; the district uation is far policy judge present testimony observed From this we are forced preclude appears to unhappy Board conclusion that Parole any pris- parole forgotten possibility simply in mental man long Dannemora nothing oner as institution to offer which has perfunctory Hospital. treatment, had a him. He no receives parole in occupied any kind, ap- therapy pears apparently action further to be in need of keep type that date.3 been taken since has of confinement and is able through equilibrium only his own his Judge Port that is of interest It some hope pre- efforts and his that he expressly that Dannemora at noted paring day he himself for the when will medication received no had Schuster be released. infrequent inter- than treatment other reason doctor. views with a staff Corpus C. neglect according Petitions Habeas apparent for this Gorlicki, director Dr. Izaak assistant 1948, repeatedly Since Schuster has paranoia Dannemora, is that Schuster’s challenged his Danne- commitment to not “deeply it would rooted” that is so mora in the but New York courts Moreover, respond therapy. Schuster peti- in each instance His to no avail. duty. assigned any work has not been tions in the state courts for habeas Judge asked When Schuster was corpus asserting sanity his dis- were there,” “up he 1950, he Port if did work in missed the New [before challenge permitted courts such a explained, for while. “Not now. I did Johnston, that, in People I librarian, ex than rel. Brown v. I other was but things N.Y.2d study my spare like 174 N.E.2d time and in 725, (1961)] 2, 1962. try prepare honorable and on October for an that to petition, Another I was re- December that step dated rehabilitation so when hearing cold, I led to a in would a state court I out leased wouldn’t petition- Dannemora, Op.Atty.Gen. 117, transcript in was not found 2. This practice parole file, ascertained Board does was its existence not er’s nor anyone hearing who is incarcerated in a mental below. presumption institution for the is that theoretically, While, Parole Board mentally ill. directly parole authority Schuster alleg- York, was Northern District of New in March 1963 which ing assigned that he was sane represented counsel. the state procedure by adjudged which he was in- hearing, only one the 1963 state At sane transferred to Dannemora was Carson, He testified. psychiatrist, a Dr. considering unconstitutional. Schus- indi- was “an that Schuster admitted request assignment ter’s of counsel general is cor- conduct vidual whose after the district court’s dismissal of that logic” and rect, impeccable uses writ, reviewing this court after the tran- signs men- “he no shows obvious script hearing of the 1963 remanded deterioration, untidi- tal such as illness proceeding to the district court or- ness, hallucinatory experiences, bi- February 28, der dated an evi- None- zarre ideas or bizarre behavior.” dentiary hearing on the issue whether theless, that Schu- concluded Dr. Carson the initial transfer he had ill since ster was corruptly motivated and directed type paranoid “This condition. assigned. counsel be A on illness,” explained, “in which Carson during July 12,1967, remand on was held logical an entire belief delusional but court examined single premise, and is based false on corrupt also issue transfer prem- if one the truth of the false allows questions petitioner as whether was men- ap- longer patient’s ise the behavior ” tally now, * * * ill in and is and whether pears Dr. Carson abnormal which had accorded been believe that while he could conceded Judge petitioner proper. were Port Regents’ cheating place exam- took again on dismissed writ December prison prison, and that inations appeal and this followed.4 dep- officials be reluctant would effect, he ositions to that submitted II. anyone would com- could not believe that hospital mit a man to a criminal- Right Hearing to a Full ly Accordingly, insane because of it. has maintained his in- must be concluded that Schuster to Dannemora in 1941 ef- by Schuster’s He was unmoved sane. right equal fected violation of his deny, claim, state did which the protection of the law under the 14th warden, con- clerk and chief grounded Amendment. His claim is shortly aft- been dismissed troller had the contention that he was not charges cor- made er Schuster procedural rights same contesting ruption. note, further, the court We transfer which are afforded civilians hearing, to consider the 1963 refused similarly facing involuntary commitment legality the of transfer Schuster’s urged to a mental institution. It is on only upon and Dannemora concentrated behalf, therefore, his be returned sanity. then dismiss- The thus eligi- to Clinton Prison where will be by writ, the ed the a decision affirmed parole ble and at least be removed Division, Dept., App.Div. Appellate 22 3 grievously distressing the from atmos- and, 762, (1964) 2d 253 N.Y.S.2d 534 phere of an institution like Dannemora opinion by the New York Court without the houses insane. 968, Appeals, 259 of 15 N.Y.S.2d N.Y.2d 856, (1965). 207 527 A. N.E.2d Effect of Transfer from Clinton Prison to Dannemora peti- Undaunted, initiated a July corpus tion for state habeas characterizes Schuster’s transfer in the United District Court Clinton to as States denying request petition. of a certificate 4. did not Schuster’s 1965 At oral appeal. filing argument, probable this we announced that a before further cause request however, required. did, make such certificate was not 28 He See stage proceedings of and U.S.C. an earlier granted Judge the certificate Port body Commis- included New York State’s mat mere administrative no more than a Correction, deputy commis- simple of claiming represented sioner ter, it Hy- Department of Mental change place sioner of and that of detention Justices, giene, Supreme ju purview four Court beyond state this action was Hos- of Matteawan State People the Director ex rel. Sacco review. dicial See Islip pital, Director Central App.Div.2d Shaw, 4 nanno v. Psychiatry Hospital, Director of (3d Dept.1957); v. Urban N.Y.S.2d York, Hospital, as- 1962); two (8th 18 Bellevue Settle, Cir. F.2d 592 attorneys, doubt,” the Director as sistant district 4241.5 U.S.C. “There Service recently Information the Mental Health remark Supreme Court pro- Department, a First Judicial ed, discipline administration and “that distinguished law, state facilities other detention are fessor of of state subject physicians. It They attorneys practicing to federal functions. are exhaustively studying only paramount years authority spent federal where two rights super statutory problem, able staff aided constitutional Mahon, clear, however, Malachy in now T. It direction of vene. regulations appli Uni- of Hofstra stances Dean of the Law School where position versity. con as facilities of its a measure inmates As cable reforms, regulations rights, respected needed initiator of flict with such Avery, prior re- Johnson the Committee’s be invalidated.” we notice -, L.Ed.2d to substantial port, led 89 S.Ct. made 394 U.S. difficult, (1969). Hygiene Law, It Mc- changes in the Mental regard, that a transfer to discern 27, particularly Consol.Laws, Kinney’s c. confronting in us character 72-74, the is now in what §§ rights the nature described volves involuntary commitment. civil only Supreme did the Court. Not problem posed considering effectively possi eliminate terrifying but the obvious faced with signifi bility parole, it possibility him, the transferred upon cantly increased the restraints extraordinary hardships, may exposed him to ill at all. Yet he will indignities, him to and caused suffer confined men are not physical dangers, both frustrations dangerously mad but so. the New As psychological, re he would not be indicated, have themselves Courts typical prison quired set in a endure exposed physical, he will be emotional ting. general agony. Confined repeated rigors insane, with those who are told an insti- The adversities and ly that he too indeed treat cata- is insane and have been tution such Dannemora insane, scholarly persuasive logued ed much for not take does in a sanity man and in his own distinguished study problem of the the end to mental aber succumb to some Bar of the Association committee York, ration. Cf. Dennison v. Special City Com- of New York. (Ct.Cl. Pro- Misc.2d Study Commitment mittee Relating In- 1960), grounds App. cedures Law on other 28 the rev’d the Bar of competents Ass’n the 608, (3d Dept. Div. 280 N.Y.S.2d 31 Illness, Due City York, 1967); People Mental v. Hoff ex rel. Cirrone 407, App.Div. 404, mann, 23- 255 Process, Defendant Criminal 83, (3d Dept.); People ex rel. Brown N.Y. Bar 86 (1968) cited as 26 [hereinafter supra. Johnston, v. this eminent Report], members The validity 383, argued pris- Law Although § Correction 5. procedures us is not before those federal in fed- oner commitment analogous system now. to New eral State, Moreover, supra, plaintiff reveal that there facts in which the always grisly possibility initially damages $115,000 lurks the that a in awarded placed wrongly spending years will be ma- Dan example, candy rooned and For Mat- he forsaken. nemora because had stolen age val Hospital the functional ued at teawan State at the of 16.6 $5.00 equivalent those for con- of Dannemora Moreover, there pris- is considerable evi misdemeanors, female victed of prolonged dence that a civilly commitment in oners and for committed who providing an institution dangerous custodial under Mental are found to be “mentally confinement for the sick” and Hygiene See Correction Law 85. Law § nothing more itself cause serious procedures for commitment 400. The § psychological any harm or hospital exacerbate either are identical. pre-existing psychia condition. one As See Law 408. Matteawan Correction explained: prevailing trist has “[U]nder has 119 inmates who have been confined conditions, super-impose pa- new disabili 1925, there 29 since since existing ties on many least in disabilities —at at been there since least tients who have forcibly Morris, cases—when we commit century. su- 1915—over half a people places sick called mental pra, hos York Bar Associ- at 656. pitals reality which in study startling remain custodial infor- ation discloses asylums.” Hearings on Constitutional mation of November that as Rights Mentally old, inmate, years before Sub- had been at then Rights comm. on Constitutional as unedu- when Matteawan since Comm, Judiciary, Senate Cong., 87th boy years imprisoned cated of 19 he was pt. And, 1st Sess. maximum-security institution in this repetitive “There Report another warned: Bar at 72. the insane. N.Y. study patient reveals another individual once has remained also evidence that bug- stealing a horse and large accused of years was gy hospital in a mental for two Matteawan aft- committed to quite unlikely more, or he leave ex guilty pleading suffer and found to er cept by one of death. He becomes insanity.” This inmate large “acute delusional patients.” mass ‘chronic’ of so-caller former; Bloomberg, Proposal Community- more fortunate than A for a age years Hospital later at he was released 59 of a State based a Branch longer Katz, “a men- Hospital, he was no & Der 89 because cited in Goldstein society patients.” showitz, Psycho-Analysis, Psychiatry N.Y. or other ace to & Law, (1967). Dennison also Bar n. 1 at 72. See spectre commitment of unwarranted 6. The infringed, sentenced to a state when lengthy be some- duration normals, of such were he to confined statutory pro- diminished recent appearance, what with mental defectives whose periodic requiring non- review for visions speech, personal are abhor- habits involuntarily persons committed criminal clearly rent, as as would be the case if Hy- institutions, Mental to state required madhouse, live he were leading giene Law and decisions injury by un- or in fear untrained or prisoners at for committed similar review manageable animals, if were constant- expire. Baeo- See time their sentences ly subjected odors, or if con- offensive developments strom, of these None infra. periods long dungeon to a fined offer comfort however solitary or, Byron’s confinement, like position, the former are since Chillón, inapplicable prisoners, Prisoner were chained to a their terms help pillar. dungeon to one latter is of and even the little Constant association with serving long imbeciles, person- sentence. suffering from the many them, al behavior associated with commented, 30 a New York court And * ** doubtless to force nor- tend years ago, that: * * grow mal *. point like them The law unnecessary out would be “It recognizes rights of this the fact men- would relator’s fundamental 1080 very by nature, 485, 45-46, 9 addition, confine- N.Y.2d at 215 N.Y.S.2d at its In criminally orig- (emphasis in the for the 174 N.E.2d at 726 ment at an institution inal) . than at a far more restrictive insane is dramatically Nothing illus-

prison. more petty in- difference than the trates Accordingly, we would delude dignities inmates in the former to which prisoner’s ourselves if we believed that a example, subjected. their For visit- are prison transfer for the a maintained rights ing correspondence are cur- criminally insane mere is a administra reproduce appendix a In the asylum tailed. tive matter. Prison and are di by prisoner petition in a similar pro a se by vided far more than the few miles that listing at in Massachusetts separate institution Dannemora. Clinton and thirty-five illus- differences least deprivations, view of substantial seemingly trating small these indignities hardships such a move may indignities accumulate may numerous produce, scrutiny neces prisoner-patients point where sary procedures pre to ensure that galling re- of all most them the ceding safeguard consider adequately the transfer straints. rights prisoner. fundamental stated, Finally the court below as B. Proce- prac Commitment held in Dannemora Differences dures Prisoners and Civilians hearing by tice not even called for By contrast, Parole Board. had Schuster Law, Under the Correction Clinton, might remained he have re time of trans- as read at the Schuster’s ago. society years turned to over Ad prisoner 1941, fer in could be trans- a long ditionally, as as is consid solely on the ferred certi- insane, prevents ered him law single (even fication of a non- doctor original seeking con from to vacate his hearing psychiatrist), judi- without a or by People viction a writ of coram nobis. However, cial review of kind. Booth, N.Y.2d 216 N.E.2d involuntary time commitment of (1966). 269 N.Y.S.2d 457 required civilian institution to a mental qualified of two exam- examination signifi- attributing We are not alone (instead single’ physi- prison of a iners prison to an cance to a transfer cian, conceivably could be influenced criminally insane. institution by charges that the institution Recognizing transfer such a corrupt), served was notice deprivation of further cause substantial proceedings (Schuster commitment liberties, courts have York’s own claims was not told in advance of the challenge permitted proceeding nature of the which led to his corpus. Peo- habeas transfer writ of and was transferred within supra. Johnston, ple ex rel. Brown v. Appeals hours after he was seen Thus, York Court doc- the New tor), “any judge restraint stressed before a further judgment permitted excess of that sanity, which insured the guarantees should be right constitutional of cross-examination, etc., and a individual, subject inquiry. once An court order of commitment —none of validly jurisdiction all forgotten by rection rights convicted ** unalterably * remainder Department not to be divested placed under abandoned society.” of Cor- which was afforded Schuster. replaced by April 72-74). N.Y. pp. N.Y. Mental 931-34 ch. (repealed Hygiene ^[1933] 1965; Law of Law §§ Laws now quite quite cruelty ple Hoffmann, App. as real tal ex rel. Cirrone v. pain.” (3d Dept.1938). Div. devastating physical Peo N.Y.S.2d Equal protection Protection dural C. before further confine- ment as initial com- civilians face We substantial believe institution, mitment to a mental Chief disparity pro procedural between explained: Justice Warren “Classifica- facing tections afforded civilians involun mentally persons tion of ill as either in- tary commitment a mental institution dangerously sane or of course insane deprived him purposes be a distinction for reasonable laws, equal protection within determining type of custodial or meaning of the Fourteenth Amend given, medical care to be it no but only logical deduction ment. This is the relevance whatever in the context of the analysis of recent that can follow from an opportunity person to show whether subject. Supreme Court decisions mentally is ill at all.” 383 U.S. at origi- (emphasis 86 S.Ct. at 763 Herold, Baxstrom v. 383 U.S. nal). (1966) spark- S.Ct. 15 L.Ed.2d 620 cannot tolerate ed an awareness that we Judge Port inap- Baxstrom believed persons two of insane classes —criminal posite to the case at bar. He reasoned non-criminal, are asked we —when that because Johnnie Baxstrom was near- procedures avail- to examine commitment ing the end of his sentence when he was case, In that the Court able both. committed under 384 and hence was § Cor- struck 384 of New down York’s § longer prisoner, his commitment Law, dealt the com- rection in effect “civil” and had to meet procedures mitment trans- every the standards of other civil com- prisoners, to Dannemora whom ferred pris- mitment. Since Schuster still a is keep the state institutionalized wished Judge oner, concluded, Port is en- expiration of their sen- only- titled to the same treatment procedures tences. The for commitment every custody. other provided by basically 384 were § civilly-committed same per- as those for analysis, believe, This misses except sons right the latter had the mark. Baxstrom clearly, instructs by jury de novo review trial of the procedures to be followed sanity of their 74 of § determining whether is committable Hygiene Law, pris- Mental whereas must be unaffected the irrelevant position oners in Baxstrom’s did not. recently circumstance that one or has Additionally, the decision whether pursuant been under sentence to a crim person send a committed under conviction, although inal the fact hospital or to a civil one has committed a crime be rele completely within the discretion of ad- vant to the substantive conclusion that officials, civilly ministrative while one mentally he is ill. As one court ex committed could be sent Matteawan plained: Supreme “The Court struck after a determination system down the New York not because presence hospital in a civil would be reaching Baxstrom was the end of his dangerous safety to the of others. Men- sentence, dangerous- held because it Hygiene Law, tal 85. These differ- ness is not relevant to the held, ences the Court in a unanimous determining ‘person whether a is mental- * * * opinion, equal ly denial of constituted ill at all.’ Baxstrom thus might protection. rejected absolutely require It said to the conclusion argument that, validly prior state’s that one could while criminal conduct distinguish groups relevant between the be- to the determination two whether a danger- person ipso dangerous, cause had ill and ex-conviets facto Positing justify propensities. procedural cannot ous or criminal denial of safe-' guards that determination.” whose sentences about Cam- Mullen, expire proce- (D. eron v. are entitled to the same 387 F.2d 1082 605, 1967). People Fuller, Specht Patterson, v. Cir. also In v. 386 U.S. C. See 102, 1209, 326 (1967), 306, 292, 18 at 87 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d N.Y.2d 300 N.Y.S.2d 24 again 17, Court, (1969). Supreme 110, 23 a unanimous N.E.2d at holding, sharpened the further distinc finding ac teaching tion a criminal between of of Baxstrom —that a committability tivity finding dangerous and of

finding a or criminal of be holding illness, necessity reason of mental havior does not obviate a convicted sex entitled separate adequate of offender was determination hearing question ill commitability applica a further of found also —has Thus, to an ness before he could be sentenced for ex tion other related cases. ample, indefinite term an offender as “habitual declared before court even Specht mentally ill.” has since been Baxstrom who became an ex-convict applied to followed York and from New insane after release People hearing this state’s offender statute. same sex could not denied the 588, Bailey, v. N.Y.2d 289 N.Y.S.2d commitment to one who before aváilable (1968). 237 N.E.2d 205 incarcerated. United had never been McNeill, 294 F. ex rel. Carroll v. States Goldfinger People ex v. John In rel. (2d 1961),8 appeal Cir. dismissed 2d 117 ston, 53 Misc.2d 280 N.Y.S.2d 685, 7 moot 369 82 S.Ct. U.S. (Sup.Ct.1967), ex York court has (1962). L.Ed.2d 782 youth tended the Baxstrom rationale to a school transferred a correctional Baxstrom extended its also (where placed pleading after to other related instances. influence attempted assault), in guilty to an courts, People Both v. the New delinquents. stitution for defective Lally, N.Y.2d remarked, requiring a court (1966) federal N.E.2d and the effected could be before the transfer Mullen, supra, courts, Bolton Cameron v. procedural distinctions “whatever Harris, (D.C. 1968), v. 395 F.2d 642 Cir. they obtained, niceties hitherto have has been have made it clear that one who longer the advent are no valid since adjudicated guilty of in reason Specht Lally.” Baxstrom, 280 N.Y.S. sanity is entitled to the same 307. 2d at committability used to an determine Fuller, et recently, People who individual is not otherwise before Most Lally, Ap- supra, al., In embraced a court. the court York Court holding Baxstrom, specific peals convicted declared that purpose well, then but its broad since who were or misdemeanors felonies as narcotics com treatment declared its intent was committed “[t]o jury express trial ply spirit if not entitled with addicts were language rea- The court of the Baxstrom decision.” 277 addiction. civilly 92. non-criminals 224 N.E.2d at soned that since N.Y.S.2d writing non- Judge Waterman, panel were crimes and ex-convicts whose for a Nor, Judge even if such Lumbard crimes. which included Chief violent dangerously Judge Woodbury should become First sit- ex-convict Circuit appear ting by designation, insane, point to be there does made hastily justification clarity: transfer- for more ring nothing com- after his him to Matteawan find to demonstrate “We dangerous who, expiration at an ordi- act mission of ex-convicts nary hospital mentally sentences, ill, in transfer- than their become are inherently ring any patient dangerous has commit- other who more than those hospital such a an act at ill ted such not ex-convicts. delayed many nevertheless whose transfer fact there are ‘criminal tenden- way had shall have in no tenden- until after cies’ that are violent hearing.” just many at 123. F.2d cies as there are convicts Thus, committed for addiction two-physician were addition to the trial, equal pro certification, provisions it would appro- violate priate notice, hearing 14th Amendment to action, tection clause and court right deny hap requires those addicts who New York also be- ing pened concurrently convicted of a involuntarily, be committed review upon crime. The court relied Baxstrom need for further confinement 60 days reading case, do, Herold, commitment, after another review require year, of the after by periodic an examination substance followed re- proceeding, every years It found not its form. views regular two thereafter. These basically periodic for treatment a require commitment proceeding involving reviews in each person who a sick instance a determination help. needed sent to Dan need Schuster was further institutionalization. Hygiene for the He was nemora same reason. Mental (McKinney, Law 73 § alleged (paranoid) Supp.). Moreover, sick 1968 to be when so, transferring and him there did these determinations is adverse to the told, patient, may we are for his “care and treatment.” civil obtain de novo re- logic Accordingly we see no reason view on sanity jury. the issue of a distinguishing plight Hygiene from Schuster’s Mental (McKinney, Law 74§ Buttonow, Supp.). Fuller’s. See also In re New York has also created N.Y.2d 244 N.E. a “Mental Health Information Service” (1968). 2d 677 whose study function it is to and review involuntary admission of civilian patients, patients inform the of their D. The Procedures Now Followed for rights, present relevant information to Commitment Criminals Civil- court, participate pro- in the ians ceedings 72-74, mandated Men- etc. §§ Since Danne- Hygiene tal Law (McKinney, 88§ mora in New York substan- Supp.). Note, See Men- tially procedures revised its commitment tal Health Information A Service: prisoners non-prisoners,9 both for Approach Hospitalization to the indicating continuing concern that the Mentally 111, (1967). Colum.L.Rev. power people away in to lock “lunatic Thus, true, sage commented, it is as a asylums,” they criminals or whether be that time is what we want most but use no, indeed, is awesome and can be abused. worst, today for there remains almost as wide a chasm between the roads travel- Section of the Correction Law now by non-prisoners ed prisoners prisoners safeguards many affords existed in 1941 when first ar- Hygiene provided the Mental Law rived at Dannemora. prisoner may civilians in 1941. Before a Dannemora, be transferred he must believe, already We as we have be pendent two inde- an examination indicated, implicit in Baxstrom v. appropriate physicians and on principle Herold is the that such dis prisoner notice at which parity present as exists even under the can introduce cross-examine evidence and procedural rights statutes between the witnesses, judicial approval must afforded and those extended to also be Law secured. N.Y. Correction non-prisoners violates the fundamental (McKinney 1968). requirements equal protection. however, time, com- At the same Whether man should be committed non-prisoners procedures mitment for mental illness has no relevance to undergone greater expansion. place still happens where he to be at the Hygiene Law L.1962 72-74, Correction added c. Law §§ amended L.1964 105; L.1964 c. Mental amended c. 738. procedure may appropriate much for a time we have he becomes ill. This security prisoner its surely Baxstrom and because the additional learned from or Dannemora progeny. facilities Matteawan thought might necessary to confine serve, convicts sentences still therefore, hold, that be We escape prone to be more fore be transferred hospital than civilians.10 Dannemora, entitled substantial including periodic ly same Committee Bar Association continued com of the need for review long phrased study its results jury mitment in mental institution following recommendations which are granted trial to civilians when as are agreement our substantial with conclu- involuntarily they to committed are today: sions Morover, hospital. not it does to remind those who amiss for us seem hearings required that will conduct the Principles “General applied that to is the substantive test be “Mentally serving prisoners ill sen- laid down for York has which New hospi- should to be tences continue merely facing civil commitment: juris- talized in institutions under “mental from a whether suffers Department diction of the of Correc- disease,” one that disease but whether procedures gov- However, tion. “requires care and treatment.” that erning hospitalization be their should (See Hygiene our dis- Law 2. Mental § persons provide to to modified such treatment, infra.) cussion rights to some of the accorded civil Safeguards against patients. unnec- holding do wish In as we essary possibly confine- harmful emphasize among mindful to that we are ment ill are Supreme that necessary prisoners Court’s admonition important for anyone require they protection that else. “[e]qual does identically, be all dealt (Admission “Recommendation 1No. require made it does distinction procedure). (sec- The Correction Law purpose for to the have some relevance 408) pro- tions should continue to made.” Bax the classification is which hospitalization mentally vide for ill strom, supra, U.S. 86 S.Ct. prisoners under sentence in an insti- Illinois, 351 also v. 763. See Griffin Department tution within the of Cor- U.S. 100 L.Ed. 76 S.Ct. upon rection order entered aft- today (1956). Thus, does our decision notice, er examination two examin- not mean that all distinctions between ing physicians, opportunity prisoner patients be must civilian and however, addition, In heard. these swept say aside. do We pro- statutes should substantially be amended patients are entitled vide that the Mental Informa- Health safeguards non-prisoners same afforded tion Service should example, receive notice before commitment. For applications, and should Hygiene provides that of the Mental Law powers perform same the same Matteawan, being before committed services as set forth in Article 5 judicial determination there must be a Hygiene the Mental as to civil Law committed the individual patients. dangerous and others. Such himself Report practice considered Bar Committee New York endorsed of main- The concept taining separate rejected explicitly prisoners facilities provisions mentally ill, for civilians who become instead of commitment send- ing hospitals. prisoners See them to identical. civil should be Moreover, Report at 20. N.Y. Bar (Periodic particular, “Recommendation No. 2 the burden of review). proof the in- corpus proceeding in a habeas judi- voluntary periodic traditionally retention and upon petitioner. Bolton ordinary patients, Harris, supra. cial review civil us, In the case before including on the occasions such re- finding the district court’s on the crucial view the assistance of the Mental corruption simply Service, ap- Health Information should “failed to sustain the bur ply prisoners hospitalized proof while serv- den of on this issue.” In a com ing a sentence.” proceeding, by contrast, mitment the bur traditionally den seems have been on Report N.Y. Bar at 2. Moreover, the state. well be longer that the New York courts nowill permit corpus proper remedy habeas as a Existing Adequacy Remedies E. committed under vigorously ar The state has in the belief that the amendment of gued already received that Schuster has that section in 1962 obviated the need rights all in his is entitled writ, granted for the for the first time hearing. corpus 1963 state habeas We just year before the amendment however, Supreme believe as did People ex rel. Brown v. Johnston. Ap See Court and the York Court People Herold, App. ex peals, corpus rel. Carroll is not an ade that habeas quate proper pre-com 958, People for a Div.2d substitute ex rel. Conover v. hearing. mitment avail The writ was Herold, App.Div.2d 773, 263 N.Y.S. patients able to Baxstrom in both (3d Dept.1965); Report 2d 858 Bar N.Y. Lally, yet this court deemed neither n. 26 at 23.11 remedy they sufficient. Instead conclud protection equal required ed that procedural protection ex-prison Holding same F. Our Effect of by acquitted ers and reason in judicial accompanied Most reform is sanity civilly com was afforded those by dismay of horror and that cries Mullen, supra, mitted. See Cameron v. surely action has carried 201; Harris, supra. Bolton v. Schus society abyss over the and into the brink hearing ter’s 1963 inade indicates how Certainly chaos. administrative quate great writ can in circum be was true of Baxstrom. When was Only stances such as doctor this. one invalidated, York authorities the New testified, a man in was whom patients confined decided to all placed trust. The insub pursuant or Dannemora Matteawan stantiality testimony of that doctor’s provision in that total characterized as follows: Schus —a hospitals. mates —to This transfer corruption.

ter I don’t civil believes in be existed, ergo corruption designated by “Operation lieve such Schus was them as ter is insane. was Baxstrom.” this decision When Judge Although present argument Port on remand did 11. on the mat- evidence or sanity. fact, that Schuster was a determination make ter the is- of Schuster’s In mentally ill, the 1967 we believe that sue on introduced the state first inadequate. hearing had Counsel assured us at cross-examination. Counsel expert argument they our terms of order been instructed oral wit- have hearing testify prepared would be limited to nesses who are veracity single question sane; of Schus must and Schuster corruption. And, charges ter’s proper opportunity present interpreted Judge indeed, the hear Port case. Therefore, ing to that issue. as limited quite generally tran Morris, 670-75; from the obvious See it script N.Y. prepared Report counsel were Bar 221-28. segments announced, of the com some committed under 383—§ outraged. particularly munity In those committed were anxious special pre-1962 unions demanded law volved labor like not be Schuster-— working training denying pay require so ill as to them regular prison. the “freedom” aof Operation transferees because Baxstrom “dangerous.” they presumptively were any event, do not believe our neighborhoods of civil Residents today though requires decision even presence hospitals protested the mental periodic inter alia review of need to in their midst. of “criminal lunatics” prisoners continue in institutions for the evapor only year protests one Yet in criminally open proverbial insane will an astound The transfer has been ated. floodgates unduly the courts burden nearly ing 1000 ex- Of these success. safely with frivolous cases. We cannot appropriate whom predict every prisoner-patient will prior to de had Baxstrom authorities demand the make review we here avail- dangerous to be to be too termined example, patients able. For 454 of the placed hospital, been in a civil 176 have hospitals Opera- transferred to civil fully discharged home com to their —147 Baxstrom, nearly tion half the total num- hospitals; to other munities and the rest ber, hospitalized chose to remain on a remain civil 454 others elected voluntary though they basis even could voluntary hospitals informal validity have contested the of their com- status; had to be seven have by jury mitment in court Bar trial. N.Y. returned Matteawan Report Also, six-year n. 32 at 26. they danger were determination study procedures by of civil commitment noted, the Bax- ous. As author the American Bar Foundation confirms pure patients as almost as strom were premise. this Its authors state: “In Ivory per Snow; they cent were 9929ioo practice right jury this trial [to dangerous illness. See free from mental proceedings] civil is commitment seldom Morris, supra, at 672. invoked, or in either in California jurisdictions study. other included this explain this mis- could massive What infrequent they So that over the placement people Matteawan occupied study in the several months places more re- which are Dannemora— Angeles Los we were able observe prisons hospitals? The strictive than Rock, jury al., et two trials.” Hos- Report it indicated was New York Bar pitalization Discharge of the Mental- “another instance of institutionalized ly (1968). 111, 102 at per- expectations putting our blinders unlikely But even in event ceptions.” Report The at N.Y. Bar 227. every Department very Cor- in Dan- men fact that these were hospital rection mental does demand circular nemora have induced panoply full to which reasoning impelled New York entitled, they the total number of such authorities the conclusion prisoners one time is at “dangerous.” sentence independent Perhaps were compared to number of in- so small judicial patients in Dan- examination voluntarily in state committed civilians guidelines pursuant laid to the nemora hospitals the effect on to an at- down in contribute § systems administrative mosphere At permitting vision. clearer Report Bar minimal. would be N.Y. Operation very least, the results 85,279 April 26. there were On unlikely Baxstrom indicate that patients hos- state resident civil patients significant that a number pitáis. At opinion, the same time there were “applied liberality with a prob- 2,971 patients fewer than all classes ably not warranted the remand.” in both Dannemora com Matteawan and manner, concerning evidence Y., Dept, of Mental bined. State N. treatment accorded Schuster at Danne- Hygiene, Directory of Office mora has been called to our attention. (1965) Licensed Mental Institutions As we already illustrated, that evi- quoted Report 26.13 N.Y. Bar suggest dence tends to that Schuster does Moreover, Department of Mental any therapeutic now receive treat- Hygiene provided us with statistics ment presently and does not need the during which indicate that the fiscal merely in-, custodial care with which the year ending 25,439 per March provides stitution him. involuntarily admitted to state sons were hospitals, civil mental while 152 purpose sole served Dan admitted to Dannemora and were Hospital nemora State “confining Further, York Matteawan. caring prisoners for such male as are summarily Appeals Court of dismissed declared ill while confined in a argument courts would be its * * * pro- and others jury ordered burdened that court when vided for under section three hundred trials criminals committed all eighty-three.” Correction Law 375. People treatment of addiction. narcotics And, according law, one is Fuller, supra, N.Y.2d “mentally ill” when he is “afflicted with And 248 N.E.2d 17. N.Y.S.2d mental disease to such an extent that for assumption it is the number a fair others, own welfare or the welfare of the num addicts involved far exceeds or of community, requires care ber of committed under § Hygiene and treatment” Mental Law thus trickle of water We add but a 2(8) (emphasis added).14 The stat- against an ocean. When measured utory contemplates scheme thus that a possibility persons committed as prisoner will be committed to Danne- wrongly summarily sub were only mora if he is ill and in jected prison to the of horrors a for the special need of or treatment custodial insane, any inconvenience is so small problem presents care because of the comparison ignore cannot our we leg- prisoners. to himself other obligation to their If re-examine cases. appeared presume islature to that one open any “floodgate” today, we which provisions committed under its would be doubt, provide it flood to provided adequate with care or treat- long-overdue of relief. ment, justified the need for which commitment.

III. Cameron, Schuster’s “Treatment" at U.S.App. In Rouse v. 125 Judge theAt Port the 366, before (1966), D.C. 373 F.2d 451 were, rules of evidence as he noted in his persons indicated committed to a figures prepared 13. Note that these were 14. “Care and treatment” are themselves de- prior Operation Baxstrom, may care, surgical fined as “medical attend- population ance, nursing have involved half of of medications, as well as Report food, clothing maintenance, Dannemora. N.T. Bar See furnished patient.” Hygiene ato Mental 2 Law § (6). 1088 (1960). guilty hospital pleading Maryland, not also See v. 334

mental Sas insanity (4th 506, 1964); F.2d of have constitu- 509 Cir. Robin- reason California, right treatment while institu- son v. 370 U.S. 82 S.Ct. tional Similarly Supreme Judi- 758; tionalized. 8 L.Ed.2d Easter v. Dis- recently cial of Massachusetts Court Columbia, U.S.App.D.C. of trict 124 of murder but that one accused declared (1966). 361 F.2d 50 state in a who has been confined criminally in- hospital for insane per cases deal While these being stead o'f sentenced currently sons not under a sen who are right challenge legality his con- imprisonment is, tence as Schuster it provide if fails state finement in and be that this difference v. adequate Nason treatment.

him with provide adequate itself does not basis Bridgewater Superintendent denying protections. for him the same (Mass.1968). Hospital, N.E.2d 908 233 having incidence been convicted them- Indeed, courts New York surely deprive per of a crime not does steps acknowl- toward taken selves some protections son all constitutional edging right, in relation this at least See, e.g., duration his sentence. terms indefinite sentenced to (2d Wright McMann, Cir. v. 387 F.2d 519 Kagan- People ex rel. sex offenders. See 1967). pass upon the we do not While Wilkins, App.Div.2d ovitch v. right possibility of such constitutional ; (4th Dept.1965) Peo- that, treatment, we are of the view Jackson, ple App.Div.2d v. light procedural posture of this Dept.1963); also (3d see N.Y.S.2d Mosher, App.Div.2d case, People reexamine the v. wish And, (4th Dept.1965). validity N.Y.S.2d of its confinement of Schuster People Fuller, supra, in Dannemora without the treatment Appeals the fact Court of stressed originally which he committed since program consideration purely is conceded does not need addicts, the rehabilitation hospital. custodial detention in a mental merely Moreover, detention. their urged growing number scholars have procedural prevents A barrier involuntarily committed deciding highly significant us have a the state to mental institutions yet now since Schuster has right treatment, ground- constitutional brings it raised in the He state courts. against prohibition cruel ed in either us, petition his case to for a via a writ Eighth punishment of the and unusual McMann, Wright corpus. of habeas But see v. process or in the due Amendment or pra. In such situation 28 U.S. su of the Four-

equal protection clauses requires applica C. 2254 that E.g., Note, “[a]n Civil Amendment. teenth Right Illness, corpus Restraint, tion for in and the a writ behalf Mental habeas (1967); person custody pursuant Treatment, 87 Yale L.J. 77 Birnbaum, judgment 679-81; of a not Morris, supra, State shall be granted Treatment, appears ap- it Right 499 A.B.A.J. that 46 unless plicant incapable avail- assisting has exhausted the remedies claims he is coun- * preparation *.” in the courts of sel in the able the State or defense of his case; performed by task has been Arguably, not have does Harris, other courts. See Bolton Peo- v. remedy since courts ple Lally, supra. mind, this in With civilly-committed York has held that a justification we can see little for utiliz- may patient adequacy not contest ing substantially harsher commitment corpus must his habeas treatment procedures segregate for care and proce make of the administrative use mentally treatment sick criminal the Mental 86 of dures available society from the “normal” criminal than Law, Hygiene the Com which authorizes mentally uses when it determines Hygiene conduct of Mental missioner sick civilian institutionalized should be investigations or and issue reasonable separated for care and treatment regard. People rel. ex ders in this from the “normal” ill- civilian. Mental Burt, Anonymous N.Y.2d No. v. La is mental afflicts ness illness whether it 206, 217 N.E.2d king. the criminal or denied, (memorandum decision), cert. sum, require that Schus L.Ed.2d 87 S.Ct. U.S. hearing question ter be (1966). However, we believe sanity substantially all the of his with may to con New York courts wish granted noncriminals who decision, applicability of that sider involuntarily patients committed as to prisoners especially as Schus pro hospitals. If these proper civil ter, due consideration appro cedures result determination it makes federal-state relations mentally ill not he is give opportunity Schuster is priate them an that wé returned to Accordingly, Clinton to do we believe State Prison. The so. order appropriate is particular reversed and the case remand in this ease ed to whether that we decline consider district court with instructions to hear petitioner’s confined ap be further determine may plication hearing unless a held adequate treatment ábsent courts of determining the state under the to a presented claims until standards set forth herein the issues court. We note further days Schuster raises within 60 from the of Schuster’s herein, date of issuance of the mandate eommittability en issue moot this as, or such further time the District tirely. good Court cause allow. solely with dealt here We have George We wish to thank J. Alexander allegedly becomes criminal who Seidenberg and Faith A. as- who were imprisonment. haveWe ill after his signed represent' petitioner, in this ourselves need to concern had is found opinion presentation who the individual their able issues insanity, or guilty by reason this case. possible argument subject note the to § 15. We unless he were custody pursuant originally “in is not convicted state court. Moreover, judgment since of a State court” a state court did consider and purely reject ad- corpus 383 a his claim in is in habeas However, proceeding. he would transfer. ministrative

APPENDIX Note McEwan, Pro Se Petitioner Donald

Brief of following petitioner proposes show chart By of the means Bridgewater Treatment penal his confinement [at nature of detail together they trivial, separately Any is item taken one Center]. way, any represent attitude, other so difficult reflect an punitive administration than more even Walpole. at only otherwise, allege rationale Though officials institutional regulations cen- treatment rules and the more restrictive behind the common- punishment punishment whom

ter is — totally destructive treatment be sick. Such wealth declared purpose of supposed the statute. rehabilitative APPROPRIATE? WHAT THERAPEUTIC SETTINGS C. SOME PROBLEMS ARE MEASURES PUNITIVE OF COMPARISON .Marching ¡State Time to eat Avocational Visiting Institutional Library Pay Lawyer Guards Common Meal schedule Free time Rules Food and menu Personal Rules and Silverware Entertainments Punishment (free time) (aspirin, job visit medications clothing cold Item area (lock-up) clothing pills, etc.) Always Too close for Required Can Always Sometimes To Continually Assigned More than Frequently insipid Cannot Different for Handed No semblance of trial. Limited Frequently Frequently hour once a week across table order. fence derwear specified places. entertainments, meals. without steel only threat; quently messy causing tension. Can pairs night.) room Little presence work, enter and change wrinkled, browse; no white out a dose at at “standing (no choice) underneath. stencil with opportunity Treatment Center to be either arbitrarily; Cannot little if have worn rushed at forced time each being specified evening 50% digestion. night only guard. or pairs leave shank. gray variety. out. All usually spoon. added. have over personal. make lowest Harassment common. or locked in cell. catalog white recreation, night. specified socks, shops times. ''T.C." attend. night. just day. unimaginative. institutional your (18 Always May Any time. ill-fitting, increase. underwear, yard i available. work under hour fast at marked guard be ordered shoulder," pair times and with wire only counted. or church, wages. name. shoes fre- rec. un- Only disciplinary Always optional. One pair Infrequent Always Same Allowed Choice Can Open All Inmate's Good Only Discreetly Private. Can Only Well employee). size; wear issued to counted. sweatshirts, able. Change as own cell twice a only open. deputy supt., block rec. areas. days black pers, items availble move to better ment and imagination. inmates alone. remain morning enter and leave State Prison jobs. 25.% to meals and entertainments. all the time. daily spaced. quality, supply or blue sweater. shoes without replaced marked, preference yard, changes. week, pressed apart. make lowest until job (which required appropriate or more color (13 bathrobe, browsing; changes. TV good in canteen. finished. afternoon when worn-out. in chairs everyone. paying neatly, board guard, each hour fast at consulted in rooms, Leave well-behaved whenever at in own cell. Under- underwear, open), regard to preparation wage. Walpole No job. pajamas, Greater utensils. week; and a (composed catalog side gym, chapel, (2Va limit, at once. other shops Easy civilian assign- variety night.) proper shank, hours) name. socks, avail- many Shirt side. cell- slip- Not Institutional Sleep Cells Cigarette Personal Corridors Canteen Canteen Personal metal stingers nail at clippers, orders night ballpoint safety appearance lighters, Item radio razor ON COMPETENCY refills, Told None. No Frequently Not allowed. Operated Must be Not allowed. No order Arrangements side; etc. or food allowed. profits. beards allowed. TO lockers; smoking (though guards when specified BE FREE—Part Three. per no made Treatment Center disturbed week. to lamps no control of civilians. in detail. No get haircut, days allowed. No by furniture, in advance. guards. High light from may). glass shave. prices, ADMINISTRATION blankets, smoking. objects One low in- No Wall Issued Smoking Two stations Six Available for Operated Rarely Left specification objects canteen. daily delivery). lamps profits. times a week AND to individual. locker State disturbed. by allowed. allowed. by SUPERVISION institution purchases provided; Prison on inmates. A summer canteen in purchase food allowed. on earphone Smoking allowed. No by arrangement. Beards at light in canteen. and available Low order person. Walpole in switch allowed. prices, cell. (same inside; Glass yard high day in Trustee status Sanitary National slick Minimum Mail Inmate etc.) (Life, Newsweek, Council facilities security magazines section Appointed by None. Frequently Censored None. Primitive, showers various tire mail times; apology Censor stamp used on all mail. population frequently in all mail persons. delayed no available staff. take weeks. sometimes mutilated. running (100-}-). only Outgoing being water public officials. Supt. toilet passed specified certified includes for en- cell; Opportunities Yes. Prompt Not Modem toilet and basin Elected Special passes inside. used. closed. going. available censored; delivery No inmates. any Censor to work outside delivered intact. unauthorized missives en- free time. both stamp incoming not cell; ordinarily and out- showers waif. Katz, Goldstein PSYCHIATRY Dershowitz PSYCHOANALYSIS (1967) AND LAW at 701-702 be, pass MOORE, Judge (dissenting): of the “in- merits Circuit Schuster, “tragic dustrious” after a appeal comes This case before us as peroration” pocket drew from his a revol- from an order of a federal district ver with which he killed his troublesome corpus which denied a writ habeas lawyer, wife thus wounded his at-' pris- in a New tempting Shakespearean pre- to follow petition on. chal- writ cepts. prepared speculate Nor am I lenged legality of his on the merits of his defense that 1941 from the Clinton Prison to Dan- panic in a state of did not know cases). (mental what Hospital nemora State doing. he was was indicted Schuster particularly I Since concerned am degree plea first must murder. His legislation by the trend towards jury impression made some be- courts, I feel I federal should (instead cause he was convicted second my place And to this set forth views. first) degree murder and was sen- setting, proper must I case in a factual imprisonment period tenced for a not, appeal first state what does twenty-five years life. Since my opinion, involve. appeal, there record (or reviewing least We are preferred well be that in 1931 Schuster Roy be) the life of should not life to death. difficulties which and the matrimonial brought knowing facts, Sing plagued I These events him. Not Sing majority the Clinton qualified, seem then to Prison. am easy impose model life in merits of is so to so dif-

The on others but parole impose expectancy in ficult to on his oneself. and interesting history not rele- but are my opinion, In it is not us to re- us. to the issue before vant pro- view and the various State transferred was In Schuster only ceedings from 1948 to date. concededly Dannemora, which facing problem appeal is what us of provisions the with “accorded any, rights, today are Schuster’s if and it Law York Correction of the New may they how ? secured namely, upon certifica ”, the then read1 bibliography of and news- Again, I A the books single prison of doctor. tion concerning plight paper the articles sad (and position some I have am not of those is) confined in and Federal majority State as to whether doubt encyclope- mental would be institutions “qualifications doctor’s of the know accept purpose dic. I of nobleness opinion his psychiatry” or find that writings would, prompts which such “breathtaking sim with delivered was magic them, or wand with wish that a plicity.” pill so could cure all ills that Judge hearing in 1967 before theAt increasingly many. And seem so beset testified Port, to have is said Schuster majority may (I not) do know but doctors he met with two in 1941 “indignities, dangers, frustrations enlightenment ma- modern-day with physical psychological,” which both repre- jority “not find that Schuster was enduring. think is Nor do I not “afforded counsel” sented speculate place to this is the time or doc- opportunity to cross-examine grisly popular to “the word made [a certainly Miranda received no tors.” He Fay Noia, of 372 U.S. as a result assuming warnings, that Miranda pos- 837] 9 L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. of enough warned at the time to be old sibility prisoner placed Danne- that a anything except hot stoves. not to touch mora will be marooned and forsaken.” majority concludes the record the From Shades the Bastille and 1789! they way that quasi-psychiatric-legal in a Nor unhappy helpful would I find to the conclusion decision “forced forgotten here to per- man simply review is cases various that Schuster sons noth- committed to has or the case institution which Matteawan in a mental gentleman prescriptive ing offer him.” Massachusetts whose On pro petition they “no se side, receives find that since he lists in extenso some 35 occupied in ther- items treatment, which he in his finds distasteful [and] therefore, prison. “he that, problem Massachusetts apy of kind” Our not to legislation Danne- enact appears not to be in need State of type opinions is able of confinement and or to write mora through for its his Court of equilibrium Appeals keep rather his pre- hope examine its he is laws efforts and decisions to ascer- own day they tain product will whether paring when himself are the of a benighted he should But State. released.” whether We must think and act light not, present in the or should have treatment conditions.’ my majority apparently confinement, present relate the past to the they say a fed- because problem opinion to be solved “the sub- disparity stantial appeals. procedural York State between eral enlightened protections facing afforded enacted own laws civilians in- its ju- voluntary competent legislators and its commitment own a mental insti- dealing tution and those diciary. deprived We are not equal protection him nation. practices laws, of a barbarous with- laws meaning and over- the Fourteenth dictate to the Amend- Before short, ment.” exercise procedures, we should must all now ride State process" confined in mental of that “due institutions be accord- modicum rights [People Anonymous retrospectively prospective ex rel. ed No. 1 v. La Burt, course, N.Y.2d ill Of civilians ? impossibility. 31], hypothesis especially 217 a be an N.E.2d to would as currently Schuster, However, rights such as bestowed and due such consideration proper may guide to solution here. be a a federal-state relations makes appropriate give it op that we them an certainly (or should be We are portunity to do so.” And with their dealing such abstract situation with an agree, namely, conclusion I “that may prisoners who of as future transfer particular appropriate case it is that we mentally Therefore, I take issue be ill. may decline to consider whether Schuster majority’s attempted directly with the be further confined in Dannemora absent they which of York law enactment a New adequate present treatment until has he phrase be as “before a ed his claims to a state court.” Dannemora, is entitled to transferred procedures in- substantially presented When to the same these claims are indicated, I cluding periodic need review the have little doubt that but the courts, showing insti- in a mental State which continued commitment are as much granted mentally concern to civilians when are the ill as the tution as they ma- involuntarily jority here, light to a committed evince are in the their regard hospital.” recent Furthermore I decisions mental will afford a opportunity presumptuous part to highly present on our full to his case on privilege the re- the necessary will conduct merits with “remind those who quired the hearings test ap- that the substantive witnesses and counsel retained or pointed. applied to New York be which facing civil commit-

laid down for People Johnston, In ex rel. Brown v. 482, ment.” 44, 9 N.Y.2d 215 N.Y.S.2d 174 N.E. (1961), prisoner validly 2d 725 incar- suffering person men- from a Nor is a cerated in the Attica Prison had to tal release disease entitled been transferred for mental to reasons merely “treat- mental institution because Hospital. sought Dannemora State He not as ment” yet or has is not recommended challenge by to this removal writ If “treatment” been discovered. corpus. Appeals habeas Court every be, oppose no should there held the writ could be invoked “to willingly join cure, I effort and would validity hearing obtain to test the “growing number of [who] scholars institution for the a commitment urged involuntarily have 485, criminally (p. insane” 215 N.Y.S.2d insti- committed 46, 726) p. p. and that “a 174 N.E.2d right tutions a constitutional thereby writ, precluding denial of hearing treatment, grounded pro- in either the sanity, egreg- to test would be against pun- hibition cruel and unusual 46, (p. 486, p. N.Y.S.2d ious” Eighth ishment of or Amendment p. 727). N.E.2d process equal protection due claus- 27, 33, es of the How Fourteenth Amendment.” People Lally, v. 19 N.Y.2d shocked would 654, 659, draftsmen N.E.2d N.Y.S.2d they they Constitution if said, appellant had (1967), known “The the Court protecting right past were to treatment always (as can has done in exclusively challenge validity ill for ulti- corpus) habeas Rather, in alleging mate federal court decision. of his continued detention my opinion, they said showing would have not in fact insane. that he is questions for the Also, application should be reserved he can make an (5) States. as he has subdivision of section here, as to done and ask for a key proper here is solution present condition.” majority opinion. found decisions, They in connection These read York courts “believe that the New Jackson, People applicability 20 A.D.2d wish consider (1963), People independ- v. York courts exercise Bailey, judgment merely accept 21 N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d ent with- 205, (1968), federally-created fair are a out 237 N.E.2d the new York the courts in New statute for indication that the State of give majority full consideration to would Schust- has enacted and then ab- jectly application majority’s con- er’s relief. This follow views as proper operation decision clusion is reinforced State’s system. Supreme Court United States Herold, Baxstrom v. 383 U.S. My present desire to have Schuster’s (1966), 86 S.Ct. 15 L.Ed.2d properly adequately condition and tested p. 115, wherein said at 86 S.Ct. the Court great majority’s. is as as the If he should p. petition- “In order to accord longer (and be in Dannemora laws, equal protection er the papers appear before would us this was and is entitled to a review of probable), to be then he should be trans- sanity in con- determination to his prison, ferred to a non-mental and should granted formity proceedings all given type accord- consideration civilly others committed eligible by ed the Parole Board all Hygiene He the New York Mental Law. prisoners. procedures But all these hearing under is also entitled to a should, my opinion, be under the aus- procedure granted all others pices of the courts of New York until Hygiene York Mental Law complete disregard of its and deci- laws dangerously determine whether he so Therefore, sions is shown. I would af- mentally ill that must remain When, firm the decision and below. Department hospital maintained had, if such recourse to State courts is of Correction.” is, course, Schuster free to fur- seek ther relief from the federal courts My upon inconsist- dissent is based light proceedings of the State court’s talking ency rela- federal-state about the results thereof. present having his tions Schuster decree- and then claims court State ing that “Schuster be sanity his with substan- granted tially to non- procedures all the involuntarily com-

criminals who hospi- patients in civil mitted as tals,” re- if “these Schuster determination sult GRAY, James Executor under the Last returned ill he is to be Will and Testament of Hamilton Prison.” About all Clinton State Gray, Deceased, Appellant, lacking is the number decree temporarily occupy the cell he is to UNITED STATES America. Board that to the Parole a direction No. 17353. I they him at once. convene release inconsistency Appeals be- United States find a Court also substantial Third Circuit. present his telling tween Argued remanding Dec. 1968. claims a State instruc- court with to the district case May 5, Decided petitioner’s and determine to hear tions hearing is held application “unless a determining under of the state the courts issues herein set forth standards days from the raises within here- mandate issuance date of the * * words, in, In other

Case Details

Case Name: United States of America Ex Rel. Roy Schuster, Relator-Appellant v. Ross E. Herold, M.D., Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Dannemora, New York

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Apr 24, 1969

Citation: 410 F.2d 1071

Docket Number: 434, Docket 32194

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.