*1 sоlutions to less drastic alternative problem developed, and in could be UNITED STATES America changes in stead had authorized “broad operation” which seemed to extend “far Elroy CARTER, Appellant. F. beyond exigencies urgent need.” No. 22912. (138 U.S.App.D.C. 307, at 577.) hand, Appeals, On the other the decision United States Court of District of grant Columbia Circuit. approval interim IATA investigation pending expedited Argued 16, fares Jan. compro can be viewed as a reasonable 5, Decided June con
mise solution dilemma which fronted Board: Civil Aeronautics hearings evidentiary either schedule
prior approval, cer with the virtual open tainty that this would create an situation, attempt to deter
rate approval propriety mine the of full-term
in the time and the limited limited with
information then Neither available. provided input
choice would have period
factual data created a short fares; experience
actual with the new
and, presently on the basis the record us,
before we cannot сer here, tainty Pennsylvania as we Gas, expeditiously the need to act precipitated by manipulations sought approval agree those who Pennsylvania Gas,
ment. See 138 U.S. App.D.C. 577; 427 F.2d at *2 of the staff Three members stand trial. ap- examined St. Elizabeths who during there tes- pellant confinement his length regarding his mental
tified at condition, witness called as a and he also police ob- officers who had one of the shortly his ar- after his condition served ruling upon ap- judge, in trial rest. The acquit- judgment of pellant’s for motion Washington, a Nevius, tal, there been that had Mr. John A. observed first court), (appointed jury whom would have been in the case Stratton, Washington, quired R. Mr. William submit (Tr. D.C., appellant. body brief, capacity to was on the for lant’s mental a matter 199) obviously to determine — Atty., Lyons, Mr. L. Asst. S. James U. established whether the evidence of fact Flan with whom Messrs. Thomas A. beyond capacity reasonable appellant’s Terry, nery, Atty., A. and U. John S. doubt. Attys., Hibey, U. Richard A. Asst. S. Rog brief, judge appellee. were on the for Mr. thereafter summarized trial Atty., Zuckerman, findings er E. as to Asst. U. S. contusions and appearance appellee. guilt appellant’s condition. also entered an for and mental He found: Judge, BAZELON, Before Chief charged were [s] crime That TAMM, Judge, JAMESON,* Circuit and partici- appellant committed and Judge. Senior District 200.) (Tr. pated in them. PER CURIAM: participation appellant’s That he could be an extent to such having guilty Found after waived his guilty if no causal there was found right сharges of both trial crime and the connection between (22 (Supp. D.C.Code III § 200.) (Tr. mental disease. dangerous 1970)) and assault with (22 (1967)), weapon ap D.C.Code suffering § appellant from an That pellant contends before us the trial suffering anxiety reaction granted court should have his motion for anxiety reaction at the time from an ground judgment acquittal upon the (Tr. committed. crime[s] any way of mental illness. Without ) challenging allegations regarding his recog- anxiety That reaction participation charged, ap in the crimes journals and bul- nized addict, pellant, admittedly a narcotic 200.) (Tr. letins as a mental disease. argues the evidence of narcotic reaction That addiction, weighed with the testi appellant suffered was “mild” mony psychiatrists psychol of two permitted or “moderate” one which ogist appellant, called should have person “in other or compelled grant a like to exercise control situation judgment acquittal by motion for rea himself, himself, over to restrain insanity. son of normally to function in a otherwise way society.” (Tr. acceptable within I. ) Prior to trial was committed nar- That “is and was” a Hospital, to St. Elizabeths due addict cotic at the time the crime [s] competent 200.) course (Tr. certified were committed. 28, U.S.Code, 294(d). by designation pursuant Sitting provisions Section of Title subject record as to That the unclear condition prior to alle- to and at the time of used the commis-
whether viate sion ny, the offenses. With this testimo- reaction (Tr. 201.) testimony, as with almost reason. all possible excerpts out context select That, whatever was reason forcefully argue support and to *3 addition, appellant’s narcotic the use seeks; any conclusion which the advocate of can under certain circum- narcotics obviously judge, acting trial also as the anxiety is the stances alleviate which case, the in this is far trier of facts the mental disease appraisal the more accurate of 201.) (Tr. lant suffered. credibility the witnesses and the fac- of perpetration establishing we, of the That at the time tual elements truth than although appel- record, of the crime possibly [s] faced with a cold can be. suffering is, course, men- responsibility lant was then from “a It the sole ** * a tal moderate form disease the trier of facts to evaluate the testi- reaction,” mony he was neverthe- of the witnesses to determine intelligent highly person, weight, given less any, “a what should be plan, testimony was able to he was able “capable exe- the of each ba- witness. This forcefully by principle cute” and was ing refrain- sic was stated doing Judge opin- the acts which consti- Chief Bazelon in his recent 201-202.) (Tr. tute the crime[s].” ion for this court in Adams United U.S.App.D.C. 137, 142, That at the time commit- (1969) : ted the crime “he was not suffer- [s] ing any symptoms jurisdiction withdrawal that The decisions * * * compulsive impulsive there was no have made clear our reluc- require situation the acquittal which caused him to do tance to a directed [s],” insanity. acts the upon which constitute crime for We have occasion plan was able to and to refused “[h]e the find that Government it, execute and he refrain able to was not borne its burden even when doing 202.) (Tr. [from it].” the evidence mental illness un- ** contradicted. We have em- testimony That the indicated that phasized again time and that “in view time of com- the complicated of the nature of the deci- “high” mission of the offense on intertwining sion moral, to be made— drugs, drug and that “a addict who legal judgments and medical the—” capable such a condition is more insanity peculiarly apt defense is for controlling his behavior by jury. resolution part As of its average person since the reac- task, jury “The free to believe tion from which all of us suffer to though reasonable ‘estimate’ even dif- degree completely blanketed contrary ferent or views also be by drugs.” the effect (Tr. reasonable.” 202.) findings From these of fact trial The Adams decision also makes clear judge concluded that “the crime became governing principles that the are identi- one of convenience rather than crime cal when the court rather than the necessity.” (Tr. 202.) rejected, (Id.) trier of fact. We cannot upon findings basis these and this say upon the basis of our review of the conclusion, theory testimony findings the above the crime was “tied” to the mental dis- conclusions are not reasonable or that ease. supported by are substantial testimony. We have reviewed We therefore the entire have no au- record of upon thority offered ignore or overrule them. BAZELÓN, Judge (concur-
II. Chief ring) : challenges Appellant also agree present that under our case ground upon the case sentence provided law evidence this case judge referred trial should have single question complex to the answer Legal Psychiatric Service the ease responsibility criminal in- raised noted presentence evaluation. We defense, sanity consequence and that committed above had to be decided Hospital for mental obser Elizabeths St. Accordingly, join trier of fact.1 and was on November vation opinion my view, of the Court. how- competent reported stand trial ever, responsibility proper our February 20, 1968. These data were be insanity administration defense of sen at the time fore the trial in the District of Columbia can best *4 trial, tencing. During presiding the the fulfilled a somewhat fuller discussion testimony judge of several heard the of the issues. appellant’s mental condi as to witnesses 160-171, 129-154, (Tr. 123-124, tion. I. elapsed 179-196.) weeks be Some six charges out of The in this case arose impo guilt finding of and the tween the robbery liquor of a store. the armed during pro sentence, the which sition of including appellant here, men, Three the investigation conducted an office bation police participated robbery. Two report was a which be and submitted leaving the the officers observed robbers judge sentence the trial when was fore gave chase; episode and ended store the “gone imposed, and had over which been a the robbers’ automobile struck when * * * (Sent. carefully.” Tr. rather Appellant and tree overturned. 4.) addition, a the court considered challenge seek the substance sentencing prepared report in government’s offense,2 the version of by the Offender Rehabilitation behalf robbery stipu- of and the facts the were Project (Sent. 4), and Tr. at sen- lated. The trial issue at was tencing appеllant request no for made responsibility. of criminal Upon examination. further trial, expert this record we unable at while basis unwilling to conclude that sparse,3 in conflict. was substantial abrogated any way in or abused years old, his appellant four was When residing in him in the im- discretion father, until then mother died. His who position of these sentences. good provider, drink. took to had been a - specif no time one There was Affirmed. part States, U.S.App. in due least have been at 1. Adams 134 3. This v. United brevity 411, 137, 142, 143, doctors’ contacts 413 F.2d 416- days spent States, (1969) ; appellant, at 60 with who United 417 Gaskins v. Baughmann, 288, 289-292, U.S.App.D.C. a staff 410 F. Elizabeths. Dr. St. Elizabeths, (1967) ; Washington psychiatrist interviewed at 2d 987 v. United St. per- times, States, U.S.App.D.C. 29, 30-31, for a total three 38- addition, 444, haps hours; 39, 445-446, saw he three 390 F.2d 453-454 (1967) ; King utilized him conference and at a staff United U. given ports psychological S.App.D.C. 318, 320-324, at tests Boys’ reports hospital and some 385-389 Maryland Village Baltimore and the Department Although presented Dr. of Public Welfare. no evi- Hamman, psychiatrist staff a also on the on dence the issue other own Elizabeths, testimony, dispute govern- interviewed at St. he did holding at the staff “40 minutes an hour” claim he was the box ment’s money conference; with he conferred addition was which the from the Baughmann- placed. court, sitting Dr. conference. The trial without ques- Hamman, although appear regard he think jury, did not a did not necessary psychological tests tion material. psychiatrists neurosis”:5 plagued by as rational Army, four broke volved in a record. their hood, he subsequently ment as a time age girl lic years. Eventually, he ran beat foster ized. At this he one of the ic ways, many anxiety comes from internal of the time ual state The doctors [This] means a person taking was ward; with his father “anxiety whom he logical him son died of months, up. homes good returned, his basis for Nevertheless, he shuttled skilled was cared he of tension several adjustment: “fear without an reason for the badly characterized his there is housebreaking; point he however, planned agreed attempted reaction” remainder of his express rejected laborer, different meningitis Boys’ Village.4 found to person care among that he was different women during for in that no conflicts, surrоgate fear.” The two itself overt —there is anxiety. made marry. times, five different or the children: have been the next few away; took made anxiety. sequence *5 relationship had found symptoms join a apparent for some “anxiety and this hospital- employ- inabili- contin- mother At age many When child- Most when pub- liv- in- he It where breakup something terms of After anxieties became worse. As Dr. anxiety, and, grown up the medicine his bad. He doesn’t seem to person drugs. them feel drugs, drugs. They ing out of most [D]rug Appellant from it. ior that it or tries Ordinarily ment has to do with anything, ty ****** (cid:127)X- individual that describe anxiety that Baughmann drugs were drug occasion, in the individual’s hold of his I who has it; addiction Mr. Carter is like alleviating and lived believe, goes death good, they a addicts some-way reaction.6 found there is whereas Mr. Carter that good feeling, impending take job, inability along get worked testified, in especially enjoys he in an environment that I have talked readily available; degree his son and the taking order degree because it makes takes because of way. taken specific But he “found they either suffers marriage, symptoms of getting anxiety. A functioning. a [*] taking narcotics.” to stick to high narcotics. well impair- behav- [*] takes kicks away feel- type feel had diagnosis, them did review and concluded compulsion par- tion with obsessive and diagnosis. substantiated his He explained anoid She features.” not, apparently, rely upon any other phrase meaning formidablе as that “this hospital forming opinion. records his young experiencing strong man was ten- Finally, Williams, psychologist a staff cope sions. He could not with them. Elizabeths, opinion upon at St. based her cope feelings He could with these battery psychological a five tests ego-alien feelings which we call which she administered dur- up. He tension would build would then periods. two two-hour test act out. ap- This information was obtained from schizophrenic condition, “When I pellant through and substantiated thoughts there was evidence that he has Department records of the Baltimore feelings people and which normal do not Public The basis for Welfare. the oth- have.” appears er information set forth to be by appellant. attempt statements pursue No was made further appellant might how Williams, psychologist, agreed 5. Dr. acted out his tensions. great suffered from “a preferred, deal however, condition, of tension.” She 6. For Dr. Hamman “having testified, characterize as heroin is “the best medicine pseudo sociopathic schizophrenic anxiety condi- there use is. We would it on all * * * average person bly less able than very impulses. his drugs, to control feel would h]e [Without very He uncomfortable. anxious view, however, ap- In Dr. Hamman’s might even, if took neither well-integrat- fairly pellant was overall a got help for his kind nor ed individual: might illness, even become reasonably self is well Mr. Carter’s psychotic, schizoрhrenic. probably than a intact. fact better robbery, appellant’s At the time people lot stress. under twenty capsules required habit situations series of unfortunate Regarding day. per his charac- heroin of his 1962 to ’65 death [the about apart structure ter breakup his mar- son intended addiction, expert con- up riage] stand when he did not agreed doctors flicted. Both against yet people, well them as some normal; I.Q. brighter than lant was of the others. lot better than some hospital measured at had .been say, ego strength, terms of being 119, and there was evidence average very probably and that’s higher might performance have been concept. it would stand loose think impaired by had not his аbilities been up under cross-examina- Baugh- According anxiety. to Dr. tion for about two seconds. mann, ****** some evidence Mr. Carter shows Well, impulsive, he is too. He is less people, is often fearfulness plan able to ahead. He doesn’t wait schizophrenic with indi- associated go impul- until the last off minute and Indeed, is some evidence vidual. there something. sively He is and do great if the became people on a lot of better control dealing it, way had no matter, certain- streets. For might schizo- that he indeed become *6 ly, probably than better control psy- phrenic, is, actually become average addict. chotic. [******] * * * * * * particularly not want his trol of his behavior that makes have a rather against his moral code more then tend to suffer If That things strong enough es, his guilt Mr. less able control difficult you ego, (cid:127)X- personality. Carter because primitive is, are impulses to do because than his conscience if has impulses, asking him to control is, effective what would [*] or animal-like a certain strong, in his conscious keep that come me is average person n Jfr he is eonsidera- him from does, has they great although weakness he more or his conscience. done. he would he would would be however, part deal of impuls- not be it if doing very con- rotic tion impulsive, dition in withdrawal narcotics were sobered withdrawal, ence structure ter structure. that he doesn’t have. addict when he fluence? average Q guy A Mr. drugs Is this while Well, because that who ; or while he is Carter he is man individual. has doesn’t is would be better able to certainly, still up. higher course, anybody’s con- is not an he is under the give Now, under the his is pretty intelligence, an his pretty impulsive neu- him under plan basic charac- anxiety same impulsive character influence anything than the bad average the in- if he influ- reac- inis less but except dangerous get tremely good if reactions it medicine wasn’t ** * addicted. know it’s an ex- it.” end results when the Furthermore, lant was under the influence of narcotics it was occurred: agreed my opinion, essentially [*] [*] [*] the same relationship [*] [*] [*] actually whether he was in withdrawal something out, point Let me too. or whether he was two or three hours drugs, While under influence of away being withdrawal, withdrawal, way, prior motives would be the same.
person’s behavior controls better Hamman, hand, they on the other al- when he stone would be though describing process drugs suppress a similar sober because tend to ex- pressed certainty anxiety. far less about the sev- eral elements: questioned When the relation- about taking drugs Mr. Carter has been ship between illness since 1963. Mr. Carter has had an robbery, psychiatrists re- anxiety which, obviously, reaction be- sponded with somewhat different em- goes cause nature the disease phasis. Baughmann’s In Dr. view: back to adolescence. Well, begin with, I think Mr. Now, if Mr. Carter had not had an drug fairly Carter’s di- addiction is anxiety reaction, would he have taken rectly anxiety related to his neurosis. drugs I? don’t know. is, That I think that he takes people anxiety A lot of without drugs they feel- alleviate the drugs. grew up action takes And he anxiety. drugs in an environment where step well, Then the next I will available. is— just is, it describe see it —that Nonetheless, reaction— has, by taking Mr. Carter virtue of initially was subdued anxiety, narcotics to alleviate his be- drugs. course, drug Of evil ad- come addicted to narcotics. drugs diction is that after a while the longer and, can no serve this effect Now, he doesn’t means course, go out. has every some narcotics six to 12 hours, extremely drug supported he feels bad and Mr. Carter ad- pain, suffering. by stealing. diction habit I think Now, say, although that Mr. Carter stated as I he did not clearly necessarily taking initially and I have no reason to doubt start liquor give anxiety, the reason he robbed the *7 did because of get money store initially. was to to in order relief him some buy narcotics. addicted, Once he becomes he is specific drugs, It is not that he had to rob if he not aware that does liquor get go store to the narcotics but he will into withdrawal. knew, with his educational back- hypo- Now, my opinion, ground, get he would need to the mon- situation, type is if a man thetical ey from somewhere and this was withdrawal, verge going into on the place got money where he an irresistable I think he has almost narcotics. get drugs, anything impulse do A I would Q Would he commit robbery if he were not addicted ? motive in specifically [*] doubt it. (cid:127)* his charaсter which lead I him the crime of would see no [*] to commit them know fense, toms. Mr. get eventually, drugs. was not Carter, He knew that if we don’t at the just withdrawal time of this of- like eat, you would after symp- get I robbery. to starve. while we start
207
driving
did
he started us-
by
liquor
A I think he
after
They
this
were
why
I
them.
don’t know
start-
Mr. Carter’s
is based on
store —this
using
initially
ed
them.
went
—
liquor
buy
then one
them
some
II.
said,
just
rob this
had
well
“We
going to have
place
law,
because we
once a defendant has
Under our
So, they
anyway.”
money later
that he was
introduced
some evidence
it and
suffering
robbed
left.
illness
at
from mental
offense,
acquit-
be
he must
time of the
certainly they
this,
Now,
I
see
government
show be-
can
ted unless the
money
robbing
place to
this
yond
the offense
a reasоnable doubt
drugs
buy
this was
product
disease or
of a mental
was not a
They
just as
well
of convenience.
case,
sit-
court
defect.7 In this
certain
showed
it now.
It
do
ting
specific find-
made
without
They
foresight, planning.
amount of
ings
rejected three theories
of fact8 and
do it
the stress
under
crime
whereby
it could be said
moment;
not an irresistable
product of
in this case was
point
at
rob
means
[sic]
that,
cannot
illness.
I
lant’s mental
store.
law,
present
this resolution
case
under
again,
rela-
So,
causal
think
improper.
extremely
It’s
tionship
tenuous.
tenuous.
there but it
uncontra
First.
The evidence was
took
Q
[Y]ou
-X-
[*****]
to relieve
do
agree
pain
?
Elroy
Carter
ness,
dicted that
robbery,
the trial court
suffering
was,
from a
the time
found.9
ill
It
by
469,
Stаtes,
preceded
an oral
160
its verdict
U.S.
Davis v. United
theless
ruling
;
(1895)
484,
353,
evidence
499
in which it indicated
40 L.Ed.
16 S.Ct.
States,
U.S.App.
upon
verdict.
134
it relied for the
United
Adams v.
high-
;
(1969)
procedure
141,
411,
137,
too
F.2d
415
413
cannot commend
ly.
D.C.
course,
U.S.App.
jury,
States,
to a
114
In cases tried
McDonald United
v.
(1962)
preserved
847,
points
120, 122,
ex-
F.2d
849
law
be
312
States,
(en banc) ;
88
of the instruc-
Tatum
United
an examination
v.
amined
612,
389,
jury.
U.S.App.D.C. 386,
given
tried
cases
190
tions
complex
Oregon,
Compare
court,
(1951).
issues
Leland
the often
615
insanity
1002,
790, 802-807,
can
defense
72 S.Ct.
law raised
U.S.
J.,
by special
(Frankfurter,
usually
preserved
(1952)
find-
dis
L.Ed.
Winship,
senting)
ings
with In re
397 U.S.
of fact.
L.Ed.2d 368
90 S.Ct.
anx
that “the
court also found
9. The trial
course,
in
the less evidence
Of
iety
recognition as a men
reaction
regard
by the
troduced
defendant
journals
from the
tal disease
responsibility,
the less
to the issue
course,
This,
and bulletins.”
goverment’s burden in over
will be the
applicable test,
definition
coming
See Davis v. United
it.
purposes of the
“mental
for the
disease”
U.S.,
353;
supra,
486-488,
16 S.Ct.
necessary
profession
re
has no
medical
States, supra,
Tatum
88 U.S.
v. United
lationship
meaning
dis
of “mental
App.D.C.,
388-390,
*8
at
addicts that problems are our I do know that But rug by sweeping under them
solved by hid- our face of a doctrine that saves to be If our troubles. brought all, they first must solved open for confrontation.
into the Hinton, HINTON, Virginia S. C.
Harold Appellants, and Sidwell Robertson HINTON
Eva School. Friends
No. 23294. Appeals, Court
United States Circuit. District of Columbia April
Argued 29, 1970.
Decided June Dostert, Washington, Mr. D. Pierre E.
C., appellants. for Loos, Washington, D. Mr. Dickson R. C., appellees. Judge, BAZELON, Before Chief WILKEY, Circuit LEVENTHAL Judges.
WILKEY, Judge: Circuit Virginia S. Plaintiffs Harold C. child, parents of a minor Hinton are Eva Defendant John Robertson Hinton. grandmother of Robertson Hinton period time the minor. Over a Sidwell attended Hinton John School, herein. defendant also Friends Complaint styled “Alien- Plaintiffs’ Affections, Conspiracy, ation Report: Addiction, Drug Force Task Cole, Report on the Treatment generally 22. See supra Narcotics, note notes supra. Thus, 1 and un rather presented usual circumstances case, we think that the Board’s decision grant approval interim was reasonable governing authority. and consistent with respect A final remains with sought by petitioners. to the relief briefs, petitioners their ask that cause be remanded to the fur- Board for proceedings. However, ther the subse- quent part events detailed in II of this opinion make it clear that a remand purpose light serve useful expiration underlying agree- ment pendency of another series proceedings looking approval toward of the new IATA resolutions. There- fore, merely we today hold approval Board’s group the three improper, fares was and must be re- versed. part Affirmed in part. and reversed in