*2 MOORE, HAYS, Before SMITH and Judges. Circuit SMITH, Judge: J. JOSEPH Circuit appeal judgment is an from a on jury guilty verdict of in the United District for the Southern Court District New York entered December MeGohey, Judge, John F. X. convicting appellant jumping, of bail of 18 violation and sen- U.S.C. § tencing imprisonment him to a term of years. of three We find no error and judgment. affirm on March Currier arrested pursuant 1966 a warrant issued charging complaint and two others mail with and wire fraud. He was re- following $1,000 leased bail on the August day. On an indictment charging was filed Currier with mail fraud, shortly and wire thereafter attorney telephoned him and required informed him that he was appear pleading in court for on Au- gust appear. 3. Currier failed to adjourned day, case was one and Cur- again attorney telephoned rier’s him and required told him he was pleading August August 4. On appear, whereup- Currier failed to bail was forfeited and a bench warrant issued. fugitive remained a for more months, traveling nine
than
from Maine
Florida,
staying
and never
in one
place
days.
more
than a few
registration
transferred
of his sta-
wagon
tion
from
York to
New
Maine on
August
On November
1966 Currier
informed
an
ac-
telephoned
quaintance whom he
police
postal
inspector
and a
were
looking for him and that he was a
say
Kaplan,
Atty., South-
man.”
declined to
Asst. U. S.
“wanted
Jack
(Robert
ease,
replied,
M.
“In
ern
of New York
where he was and
District
Douglas
hang
During
Morgenthau,
Atty.,
up
S.
all
U. S.
better
leave.”
events,
charge
Angeles,
previous
California,
Currier had been
in Los
while
living
Raymond
the name David W. Ren.
under
under
name
Scott
February
trans-
On
1967 Currier
registration
of his automobile
ferred the
examined
court-
Currier was
two
Shortly
from Maine
Connecticut.
appointed
purpose
for the
*3
employment
in
thereafter
he obtained
determining
compe-
of
whether he was
Ridgewood,
Jersey
the name
New
under
Abrahamsen,
trial. Dr.
tent
stand
finally appre-
James David. He was
on two
of Currier
based
examinations
May 16,
house he
on
1967 at a
hended
personal
and
with Currier’s
consultation
Jersey.
Waldwick,
in
New
had rented
Blier,
report
physician,
a
Dr.
rendered
August
indicating
that he
trial,
testified on his
At the
Currier
neurological
admitting
found no
abnormalities with
behalf,
that he had been
own
malingering,
signs
exception
of
of
by
attorney
that he
his
and
contacted
recommended
further
supposed
but nonetheless
in
knew that he was
light
study
of
claim of
in
court,
appear he
if he
didn’t
history
memory lapses
syphi-
and his
of
He
admitted
would be arrested.
also
by
lis,
Dr. Blier in 1961. Currier
deliberately
treated
not to surren-
chose
accordingly
being
to Bellevue
was
transferred
himself,
he
that
der
and
by
Hospital.
report,
A
issued
sought
second
by the
His defense
authorities.
Lubin,
no
driving
was, however,
Dr.
that
there was
stated
while
to a
that
syphilis
central
Jersey
evidence
in
which had accom-
motel
New
system, psychosis,
dog,
shepherd
nor of neuro-
nervous
his
modations for
German
logical
further
con-
apparently
abnormalities.
He
out or suf-
he
either blacked
amnesia,
competent,
cluded that
remem-
Currier was
fered an attack of
and
having merely
“personality
pattern
nothing
a
until he found
bered
further
noting
driving
Specifically
1 in
himself
on U. S. Route
disorder/antisocial.”
Portsmouth,
heading
memory lapses
a
claimed
Maine
toward
and
bail,
justification
jumped
having
Hampshire.
for his
New
opinion
Lubin
“It
is the
Dr.
concluded:
admitted, however,
immedi-
memory
his
the interviewer
that while
alleged
waking
ately upon
from the
vague
appears
topics,
ap-
for certain
it
ap-
suppose to
he knew he
“trance”
pears
in
be
service
evasion.”
pear
To
in
and failed
do so.
court
Following
justify
from Belle-
to surrender
thereaf-
Currier’s return
his failure
Quinlan,
vue, appellant’s counsel,
ter,
a
appellant
he became
made
testified that
confused,
psychia-
“tired,
private
about
retained
and worried”
motion
a
appellant’s private physician
happen
he
to him if
went
would
trist
what
dog,
permitted
back,
happen
exam-
to his
be
visit and
[Blier]
what would
Quinlan,
Subsequently,
companion for four-
Currier.
ine
had been his
jail.
continuously
years,
put
Cur- who had been
trial dur-
he
in
teen
if
were
adjourn-
time,
ing
requested
subsequently
this
several
rier
admitted
taking
traveling
grounds
bit,
quite
it
a
ments on the
around
moved
get
psychiatrist,
a
as far as
him time to
and be-
the Eastern Seaboard
about
obtaining
claiming
difficulty
Florida,
a
in
funds
he was “con-
cause of
pay
psychiatrist. Apparently a
be-
for a
around
fused” and that
moved
paid
finding
Portnow,
difficulty
psychiatrist,
had
Dr.
been
motels
cause he had
willing
his
retainer.
to accommodate
that were
$200
dog.
day
trial, Currier
On
second
Judge
brought
request-
McGohey
note
handed
it was
cross-examination
On
ing
that his own cross-examination
convicted
out
Currier
been
examined
check
resumed until he could be
prior
of bad
be
occasions
three
by
charges
Blier
1948-49. Cur-
Drs.
and Portnow. When
in
Connecticut
Quinlan
judge
if
on a criminal
defense counsel
asked
also forfeited bail
rier had
wanted to make
motion for ad- Currier
producing
had the burden of
Quinlan
journment
recess,
responded:
or
some evidence sufficient
to raise
doubt
that,
aas
result of mental disease or de-
I had consulted with
fect, he
capacity
lacked substantial
judg-
various
reasons
made a
appreciate
wrongfulness
con-
his
produce
ment not to
them.
duct or
requirements
conform it
Quinlan
day
sentencing,
On the
of law.
States,
McDonald v. United
charge
responded
by
to a
U.S.App.D.C. 120,
849-850
examined
(1962).
insanity
deprived
issue
him of an
stating:
effective counsel
Currier has indicated no such
Now, you
response
Honor,
to some
evidence,
and the record shows
of the remarks made
the defend-
there
is insufficient
evidence in this
*4
ant,
inappro-
I think
it would
that
be
hearing
require
case to
a
as to his men
priate
them,
for me to refute some of
competence.
tal
It
takes more
a
than
impinge
because I think that would
irresponsibility
mere claim of
to raise
lawyer-client privilege.
just
the
I will
States,
the issue. Smith v. United
122
say
every
that
decision that
I made
U.S.App.D.C.
300,
838,
353
843
F.2d
along
way
involving
the
in
case
this
(1965),
Cunningham
cert.
denied
v.
doctors,
cross-examination,
or
or
States,
974,
United
384 U.S.
86 S.Ct.
else,
my
whatever
made in
consid-
1350,
(1966).
16
362
L.Ed.2d
“The
judgment
lawyer,
ered
trial
I
as a
judge
regard
function of the trial
in
will leave it at that.
sanity
the issue of
is
to determine
brought
whether
that
issue is
into the
I.
ease
evidence.”
Tatum
United
v.
Appellant
that
the failure of
contends
386,
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
88
190 F.2d
judge
jury
the trial
instruct
the
self-serving
(1951).
612
insanity
the defense of
was reversible
statements
that he was “confused” and
Judge
error. The
the
District
refused
memory lapses certainly
suffered
do not
grounds
requested charge
the
defect, espe
indicate a mental disease
respect
“there was no
with
cially
light
* * *”
in
of Dr. Lubin’s conclusion
“appeared
these
to be in service of
in
This
United
court
States v.
evasion.” This court stated in United
Freeman,
606,
(2
622
357 F.2d
Cir.
Knohl,
427,
(2
States v.
379 F.2d
436
1966), adopted the American Law Insti
1967),
compe
Cir.
in
an
issue of
responsibili
tute’s definition of criminal
tence to stand trial was raised:
“Where
ty,
provided in
4.01
the
Section
of
complains
nothing
the defendant
of
more
1962 Model
Code:
Penal
memory difficulties,
than
there is inade
quate ground
holding
an accused in
responsible
person
A
for crimi-
not
is
competent
Similarly,
to stand trial.”
time of such con-
nal conduct if at the
admission
knew
or
duct as a result of mental disease
supposed
appear
he was
capacity
defect he
ei-
lacks substantial
being sought by
authorities,
the
wrongfulness
but
appreciate
ther to
the
deliberately chose not to surrender him
or
his conduct
his conduct
to conform
negate
self,
possibility
did
requirements of
law.
wrongfulness
appreciate
of his
prove
government’s
Cur-
burden
conduct.
sanity beyond
reasonable doubt
rier’s
not arise until “some evidence” is
does
II.
legal
impair
introduced
will
sanity.
Appellant
Davis
presumption in favor
further
contends
469,
States,
counsel, Quinlan,
16
failure
160 U.S.
S.Ct.
of his
United
v.
have
(1895).
353,
or-
Thus in
1043 thirty days in representation ed and that had prived him of effective forfeiture, to surrender. There was counsel. he knew he and deliber inadequacy is of counsel Where ately thirty days absented himself alleged, established courts thereafter. sufficient. Unit may stringent requirements. Relief (2 Cir.), Hall, 875, ed States v. representation only obtained when be cert. 382 86 denied S.Ct. U.S. woefully inadequate “as to been so has (1965). 15 161 L.Ed.2d the Court the conscience shock Judgment affirmed. mock proceedings farce and make the Wight, v. justice.” ery United States HAYS, Judge (concurring): Circuit (2 1949), cert. de 176 379 Cir. F.2d Having v. dissented United States 94 L.Ed. nied 70 S.Ct. 338 U.S. Hall, (2d Cir.), 346 875 de F.2d cert. (1950). is not “Errorless counsel 586 nied, 382 15 L. U.S. 86 S.Ct. may required, vacate we and before (1965), acquiesce in the Ed.2d now be a ‘total there must conviction rule there laid down. present the accused cause ” respect.’ any United fundamental (2 Garguilo, F.2d 1963). Cir. *5 from conclude We cannot farce, awas Currier’s trial record present failure to total
nor there a was on the issue the accused cause judg Quinlan’s
insanity. considered produce the not
ment a conclusion presumably based was In the Matter of LECKIE FREEBURN not be would their COMPANY, Bankrupt. COAL however, did, re favor. Smith, FOSTER, Billy Octavia Howard quest the issue based an instruction Clyde Trustee, Heflin, Ethel Smith reports had been which doctors’ Porter, Judy Appellants, testimony, introduced, own was refused. HAMBLIN, Willard M. Trustee in Bank ruptcy, Appellee. III. No. 18363. Appellant’s is that final contention prove government that he wil- failed Appeals United States Court thirty fully within failed to surrender Sixth Circuit. forfeiture, required days of Jan. statute, 18 U.S.C. § cannot be contention disclosed maintained. The evidence pro signed the bail bond ap consequences vided by his law pear, informed appear, he fled yer he must changing months, his name nine automobile, registration deliberately, to surrender failed being sought knowing necessary, It the authorities. wilfulness, prove element forfeit had been knew that bail