Willie Jones v. United States

867 564, as to 40 we think throw loss S.Ct. the whole one. is not justified. case the condi ^{[*] [*]} *» the District for which street Savage Line, United States Truck v. responsible held was was but neverthe supra at 447 209 F.2d. less awarded indemnification Reversed and remanded further Light Company lat due to

Gas opinion. consistent with duty to maintain ter’s failure to fulfill its gas properly placed in the box it had Here, on sidewalk for its own benefit.5 contrary, responsible Sinclair not for the Sinclair hole the street. presently record us must be found before negli negligent

to have been and such gence may prox have been a be found to accident, imate cause of hole independ in the street attributable Indemnity ently to turns the District. JONES, Appellant, Willie equitable upon what is and fair in meas v. uring responsibilities comparative America, UNITED STATES defendants, these should both be held Appellee. George’s Radio, Capital Inc. v. liable. No. 17485. 190, Co., 187, U.S.App.D.C. Transit 75 Appeals United States Court of 219, (1942); F.2d 222 and Dis 126 see District of Columbia Circuit. Vignau, trict of Columbia v. U.S. denied, Argued 10, App.D.C. 188, May cert. F.2d 89 L.Ed. Decided Dec. (1944); Savage v. United States Line, (4th Truck 209 F.2d Cir. 1953), denied, cert. 98 L.Ed. 1098 Even assum ing that the conduct of had Sinclair more do with the than the accident hole street, because Mrs. Nordstrom

would not have encountered the hole

except wrongful parking for the sidewalk, truck

Sinclair across the

the hole the accident primary have occurred. The

responsibility of Sinclair not so certain given its conduct not be should weight

greater as to entitle District ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍entirely by relieved indemnificat

to be

ion:6 always inquiry whether “[T]he gravity difference great participants is so faults Light Company (Sup.Ct.1959), aff’d, been noti- The Gas 13 A.D.2d opportunity given (1961); City to defend N.Y.S.2d fied Lauer v. York, (Sup.Ct. District. suit New N.Y.S.2d 251 1943), App.Div. aff’d 266 44 N.Y.S. supra (1943); Gary City Bontrager the trial 2d 680 See see, City Co., Ind.App. 151, 4. And Weber New Const. 182, note 47 N.E.2d (1943) York, (dicta). 18 Misc.2d 186 N.Y.S.2d 769 Laughlin, Washington, James J. Mr. C., appellant. Mr. Albert J.

D. degree Ahern, C., Jr., Washington, en- D. also first sentence, imposed appearance appellant. tered an 1959? Atty., Barry Sidman, U. Mr. Asst. S. I Acheson,

with whom C. Messrs. David statute5 command of the Pursuant Atty., Q. and U. S. and Frank Nebeker 9, Judge on October t he District Attys., Joseph Lowther, A. Asst. U. S. pronounced had sentence brief, appellee. were on the out carried electrocution 8, January incorporated in on He 1960. Judge, Before and Chief Bazelon, provision judgment to the further a Miller, Washington, Wilbur K. Fahy, which reads: Wright Danaher, Bastían, Burger, sitting Judges, “provided, Circuit however, appeal en if an that McGowan, banc. judgment this be taken Appeals for United States Court of Circuit, the District of Columbia Judge, DANAHER, with whom Circuit stayed un- death shall be WASHINGTON, MILLER, K. WILBUR Ap- til of said Court mandate McGOWAN, BASTIAN, BURGER and peals, or, certiorari have if shall Judges, join: Circuit granted, until the mandаte jury April 25, A on Jones 1959 found Supreme the United Court States guilty of with one assault intent to kill Court, been issued to this Jordan, and of first Alma murder and the Court shall a have fixed new degree in that to death one he shot date execution.” Reginald L. sat at Winters as the latter judgment Such were the terms of the hospital. the woman’s local bedside which this court affirmed appeal, sponte, On or- sua Supreme Court refused to review. The 1 hearing dered ly banc. en We unanimous- appellant had been convicted. He had affirmed as- conviction of required by been sentenced as the stat Jordan, sault with to kill Alma intent but ute, litigation and the on the merits had degree the first conviction was affirmed finally Nothing been terminated. re by decision of a divided court October mained to be done but to enforce ex 5, Supreme 1961.2 The cer- Court denied what ecution had been determined.6 tiorari, 4, June 1962.3 Con- Meanwhile gress adopted legislation new deal- beyond peradven clear ing punishment with the of murder. Our ture that this had and has no con present question bearing is: what has comports trol over a sentence which punishment the 1962 Act as applicable statute,7 of murder though “even it quite pre- 1. We were aware the case presented.” for the important questions. U.S.App.D.C. sented various Rel- 282, 296 F.2d at also evant was our realization 404. provided law as it then read 913, 1260, 82 S.Ct. 8 L.Ed.2d “punishment of murder in the first de- gree shall he death electrocution.” (Emphasis approved supplied.) 22, 1962, 4. P.L. D.C.Code March § 22- 46, (1951). (Supp. 76 Stat. D.C.Code § 22-2404 II, 1961). U.S.App.D.C. Jones Supra 276, note 1. 296 F.2d 398 The “defend guilty ant” had by asked be found not 211, 6. Berman v. United 302 U.S. insanity. joint reason of Our view 212, 213, 58 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 204 read: argued “It to us evidеnce respecting the mental Rosenberg, condition of the 7. United States 195 F.2d required accused (2 Cir.), directed denied, verdict cert. 344 U.S. guilty by insanity. reason of With- 97 L.Ed. 652 [and see relating testimony out we deem it say opinion sufficient we are of (1952)]; cf. Gore v. purpose for the re- fore we Nor be a death sentence.” gov- require shall be sentence or resentence modify nor a sentence duce or law erned do ef- so.9 date fect Act: effective may, II Provided, That the discretion, known cir- the ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍law consider in his sole the state Such was ag- and in Law cumstances gravation Public when created adopted. determination new crime make a No punish only legislation in his the case dealt whether justifies imprison- Act, March of life a sentence effective ment. The punish ment, provided shall sen- thenceforward which event degree imprison- shall first life tence the defendant to of murder in the ment jury im- of life unless the Such sentence be death electrocution ment. prisonment life accordance recommend shall be in shall unanimous vote in this Act.” imprisonment. court be of Should determining supplied.)13 (Emphasis formed that the after guilt agree punishment, to is unable to Quite language apart from the impose and “to is authorized apt por- is that 1962 Act nonetheless impose of death shall sentence either I, 10914 tion of Title U.S.Code § imprisonment.”11 by electrocution or life provides obviously prospective in provisions, Such any “repeal statute not apply im operation, did sentences to extinguish or to release the effect 22, 1962, posed prior March liability forfeiture, any penаlty, language amendatory Act contained statute, unless under such incurred ameliorating provisions to applying its expressly repealing so Act shall previously committed offenses.12 provide, shall be and such statute specific on the Thus remaining in force still treated as va- point judgments final were not sustaining purpose of for the provided: Act cated prosecution proper action or penalty, forfei- enforcement effective tried “Cases 15 ture, liability.” be- and which date of this Act 386, 88, 92, 393, 88, 92, States, 153 20 L.Ed. U.S. S. 78 78 U.S. 357 United (1958). (1871). 1280, L.Ed.2d 1405 2 Ct. States, 312, Lovely States, 175 F.2d Rosenberg 346 U.S. 12. v. United v. United 1949); 1152, 1162, (4 273, v. 278, Duffel United L.Ed. 317 Cir. 97 73 S.Ct. 242, States, U.S.App.D.C. separate F.2d quoting 221 memo 95 from 1607 States, J., 889, Frankfurter, (1954); Hurwitz v. United 344 U.S. 523 randum (1931); App.D.C. 298, (1952). 134, F.2d 552 53 890, 687 60 97 L.Ed. 73 S.Ct. 788, States, 46 F.2d v. United Maceo States, 9, Bryson 265 F.2d United v. (5 1931). Cir. 789 919, denied, Cir.), (9 79 U.S. cert. 360 14 proviso (1959). purpose 1437, make was to 13. The L.Ed.2d 1535 3 S.Ct. possible prescribed deal with it Where mandatory, special of cases. United States v. class be and circumstances “facts 633, 638-639, McElvain, may properly 272 U.S. S. in trial court” fore (1926); 219, United punishment. Block- Ct. extent fluence the 148, 142, Ewing, 140 U.S. v. burger States Husty (1891); cf. L.Ed. 388 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). supra. note 10. See July 61 Stat. 14. Act respects yet not here Ibid. other codifying Title I. effectually amendatory pertinent, Act language (Supp. II, derived Rev.Stat. This repealed § 22-2401 D.C.Code § 29 Tynen, 1 U.S.Code Stat. 1961). Wall. United States supra. in note 12 cited see cases And inescapable The conclusion is particularized The text the motion only request death sentence not that “a will be made” that mandatory, unreviewable, final and but District Court that sentence had not been vacated “authorize and direct a commitment amendatory Act. to the There remained Hospital ex- St. for an Elizabeths appellant only possibility of relief period men- tended determine the pursuant proviso. be accorded capacity tal defendant judge was “in his sole disc authorized - time. con- At the there was (1) steps: retion”16 to take two siderable evidence introduced as “consider circumstances capacity the defendant’s mental aggravation and in make a de and [2] time the offense. We are termination in his as whether the case fident a full examination at opinion justifies im a sentence of life time the staff at St. Elizabeths * * prisonment (Emphasis sup- Hospital finding will result in a plied.) Should he im- decide that present unsoundness of mind at prisonment appropriate was to re- This, course, make time. sentence the “in accordance impossible pen- the infliction with the this of Act.”17 alty already imposed by the court.” suppliеd.)19 (Emphasis III Supreme on After the Court June The motion for of reduction sentence 6, appellant’s petition hearing 1962 had denied 5, came on 1962. on October certiorari, this man a writ of court’s attorney Ahern, record Defense District Court earnestly date was reissued to the shows, pressed upon the notice appellant Thereupon, 11, on June judge certain evidence as to the timely a “Motion counsel filed history sanity, lack of 18seeking Modify or Sentence” Reduce his earlier commitment unanimous hearing testimony might a that he “offer order of Commission the Mental Health mitigation offense” the end argued and like references. He that might death sentence reduced “mitigation” that the in- used the Act was imprisonment. judge one of life permit tended to to review the States, App. nied, 915, 764, 13 In Strathеr United U.S. 353 1 L.Ed. judge (1898), instruct (1957). the trial D.C. 132 2d 668 imprisonment might jury life ed the that eligi- prisoner have been The thus would jury not be recommended unless “only parole expiration ble for after the mitigating would found that circumstances years twenty he com- the date require seem to that result. Winston v. Supra mences to serve sentence.” App.D.C. (1898) States, United 13 157 note 4. Under D.C.Code opinion. Strather was controlled this (1961), imprisonment a sentence Reversing States, v. United in Winston required minimum not “ex- sentence 215, 43 years’ imprisonment.” ceed fifteen Supreme Court essentially plea 18. “Such a motion pointed the Act it out that “does leniency presupposes a valid con- prescribe, nor authorize the court to self States, viction.” Poole defining prescribe, rule or circum U.S.App.D.C. 71, 76, 250 F.2d scribing right; the exercise of this provides Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 that commits the whole matter of its exer “may the District Court reduce a sentence judgment cise to the and the consciences * * * days receipt within 60 after jury. authority jury The Supreme denying an order Court the accused shall to decide not be application an for a writ of certiorari.” capitally punished limited cases jury, By argument in which the or the is of October when palliating opinion heard, there are or the motion was years more than four mitigating elapsed And circumstances.” see since the Andres v. United been examined at D. C. General Hos- pital competency 743 n. determine to stand course, Krull Cf. trial. Of. throughout he had been incarcerated (5 Cir.), intervening period. F.2d cert. de- vague lack- and was the statute facts which that consider record and whole ing He in standards determination “maybe case.” come out didn’t mitigation.” things come “factors in could persisted, all “Of man’s would be judge under this statute During colloquy and before judge comment- The ruling, condition.” mental counsel defense announced his submitted has been appel- “All that ed no made further reference guilty.” him jury, found for a mental examination. lant’s motion transcript nothing judge There is Thus stood the record as suggest proceedings'to October said: October inquiry considered then that the my judgment “It is appel- condition into the mitigating circumstances counsel Government that time. lant granting the Court warrant of-the of affirmance the record stood on modify motion reduce “why conviction, reason and saw no and, therefore, motion modify hereto- the sentence should clerk I will file with the is denied. added.) (Emphasis imposed.” fore my opinion stаting views brief being hearing was 5th the October As regard.” his in- concluded, announced motion for reduction of sentence consideration the under to take tention hearing as denied. Without further granted He sentence. to reduce motion to “circumstances” either supporting to file counsel time defense aggravation, judge in final sen- following oc- Then memorandum. of his on Oc- written filed tence : curred 19, 1962 said: tober later “Then at a counsel: Defense “Upon consideration of all of mo- up other take will we time mitigation and in circumstances in correct? tion, that aggravation, it is determination Court:, other motion? What “The opin- that the case its of the Court Laughlin: for a motion The “Mr. justify a sentence of does not ion examination. mental imprisonment but the sentence governed by know there I didn’t bе Court: “The pending. Is of law in effect the effective motion a such Law 87-423.” of Public date motion? a ** Laughlin: Yes “Mr. as The course shows, clearly had become in record discussion this verted, further no There ruling By October came without con 5th. October on motion pending for a had been motion memorandum sideration no such 19, 1962 motion, proffer That of testi- on mental examination. no made Counsel filed. 2, 1962, problem. It had asked “for October any phase file since mony on help complete at this mental examination offered he had fairly be said supported had unre he It was “discretion” time.” judge whose to sought only argued appellant’s sister.21 affidavit of the futed Counsel invoke. argument by Oklahoma, only coun- S.Ct. 20. There judge cir- L.Ed.2d 516 and note “consider should sel similarity Procedural^, of the Oklahoma relief remarkable cumstances.” statute, our that of amenda the amenda- under possibly be available tory Id., ap- at n. Act. tory elided with had become Act hearing prayer on his mo- L.Ed.2d pellant’s There had of sentence. reduction September 1962 the affidavit allegations 21. Dated nor other of fact neither been showing respect course reads: of whichever Beasley Emmie pursue. “Affidavit Were intended defense being duly Beasley, first might perceive “Emmie capital we case this not required law, de- on oath as sworn Williams v. event. Cf. either a waiver life was It conclusion since turned to our the motion for mental examina- stake, judge tion. October upon the motion should not have acted counsel informed the Government con- without for reduction of sentence motion, judge: opposе do “We adequate as to information sideration of say that we but we must to the Court pos- condition mental ask that the don’t it either and advocate competency sible lack of mental is a mat- Court allow it. feel that it We might have date. Such an examination counsel ter the Court.” Government appellant un- then disclosed that the examination, ordered,22 an if added that pro- able to ceedings nature understand the only present mental to “his should relate or to and to assist his counsel agreed competency.” “The The Had make allocution in his own behalf. only question is his Court now before the competency appeared, such lack mental present Defense condition.” mental long might condition for tinue, as that judge announced counsel concurred. The requirеd law would have grant of the the motion “in view he executed the death not be case and the conse- seriousness of the quences.” committed be correctly ob- As later here, mental institution. On the record : served we an conclude that examination of such I am that what “It seems to me scope depth as we have noted was duty facing up to is the matter imperative might prerequisite that there might you Court, call the what compe- present be a determination duty to de- law of the Court common tency. man’s of this termine condition, present as to IV sentence should whether or not the carried out.” fairly appears that counsel defense hoped procure a more—to —without succinctly went thus ruling simply upon favorable the basis problem, with a com the heart argument of the motion for reduction implications. plete Cer awareness of its 19, 1962 on October of sentence. When jury right by tainly is essent of trial no denied, he having saw that relief thus he found a verdict “A ial.23 says poses and that she is the sister might arriving proper in at a de- aid Affiant of the defendant Willie Jones. appellant’s the mental termination as to regularly him the visits at District noted the of evi- condition. We absence says ap- that it has been experts Jail. She that the had interviewed dence parent to her and to other members relatives, friends, appellant’s or ac- the family deteriorating that he is quaintances. Here, appel- where lapses mentally. memory, He has record discloses a substantial back- lant’s very depressed much opportunity is and at times ground of for observation in irrationаlly. Affiant talks believes that mental institutions well various as as seriously impaired appear his mind is so that he jail, it would that much rele- suffering now from a may severe mental information be vant available to the family it testimony disorder and is the wish of through psychia- court complete there now be a trists and others. examination direction of this Court. expressed 22. He the view that if a mental Beasley” Emmie /s/ ordered, examination were to be inde- U.S,.App. v. In Wells pendent psychiatrists appointed should be E.2d 931 D.C. this court appellant since the had been in the Dis- T)ano en observed that Wells had been Hospital trict of Columbia General competent sentenced, found when Hospital. in St. Elizabeths there been no determination competent Georgia, he was when tried. The latter v. Nobles U.S. is not element issue (1897); hеre. We re- cf. Wells, pointing manded in Brady Maryland, out v. (1963); should order Brady whatever ex- 10 L.Ed.2d 215 amination and receive State, whatever evidence 226 Md. 174 A.2d 167 insanity plea up set testify. when None the doctors was called to conviction, might as subse- [sic] defence they addition what evidence insanity . quent up in offered, cannot be set dis- Beasley have af- there was the proof plea conviction. The at appellant’s post-convic- fidavit as to . ' stage only humanity appeal Moreover, mental disorder. postpone punishment of the court to was much additional evidence available recovery place, until a as a mer- psychiatrists takes from various who had dispensation.” ciful appellant. earlier examined the unanimously Mental Health Commission may “Applications understand We commitment, had ordered the sanity a de inquiries mаde into for long before the trial. A exam- current death, unsupported fendant sentenced by facts, order, ination was in followed testi- good rea and buttressed mony findings experts, as to the believing has that the defendant sons testimony possibly and the of others any appro cannot, sanity, lost his priate be available as we have indicated.28 society regard delays judicial process, ex call . If there had been thus estab inquiry.” judicial full ecution incident post- lished basis for determination of hand, a distin the other On 25 ap mind, conviction unsoundness of guished jurist self- that the has written pellant, noted, as we have would have society a man respect demands been committed to a mental institution. basis “to be sent not Contrariwise, if the had then sanity proceeding to his mentally competent, found been amеndatory has been opportunity behalf on his all Act conferred in that is in fact to show denied judge power to take into account insanity which bars condition of whatever considerations “should al be killing him.” State weight deciding lowed considerations, Recognizing such whether the accused should should ' sentencing “com- * * in aid of punished capitally psy- appointed duty”27 three law mon know what conclusion canWe appellant. examine chiatrists might reached, had appellant had report They that the made ' mind, They principles in here with such with them. communication refused only bars. inquiry cell permissible him ducted talked before supra Georgia, apply (1961) note 27. D.C.Code 24. Nobles ap “it shall when situations certain problem pear see the from the court’s own to the court discussion For X, dissenting Frankfurter, prima observations, in opinion facie or evidence 9, Balkcom, 14 U.S. 339 accused v. submitted Solesbee p. appendix mentally at 26 sum or mind incom is of unsound judicial legislation marizing petent and de be unable to understand state so pen concerning proceedings execution death him.” For cisions t insanity “prima ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍alty after sen intervenes facie evidence” as where definition 457, 459-460, 465, fact,” ence, meaning 94 to establish the S.Ct. “sufficient 70 Phyle Duffy, Neely States, U.S.App. v. U.S. 334 v. See United 80 604. see L.Ed. 1131, (1948); 187, 977, denied, 431, 92 cert. 68 S.Ct. D.C. 150 F.2d 326 549, California, 768, 166, U.S. 78 357 v. 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. 463 U.S. Caritativo (1958); 1263, (1945). Pescor, 1531 2 L.Ed.2d Cf. McIntosh v. 175 F.2d S.Ct. (1950); 1949). (6 98, 95, 246 in So.Cal.L.Rev. Cir. 23 99 jury by unless the unanimous vote in effect to March 1962: imprisonment; recommends life or if Provided, judge may, That in his having by jury, determined discretion, unan- sole consider circumstances guilt vote the of imous the defend- aggravation and and charged, agree is unable to ant as make a determination as to whether punishment inform opinion to it shall justifies court case in his a sentence thereupon the court shall and have imprisonment, of life in which event he jurisdiction impose impose to and shall the defendant to life by imprisonment. either a sentence of death electro- Such a sentence of life imprisonment. imprisonment cution or life shall be in accordance ***** with the Act.” this :,00 by jail 1962 at A.M. neither. No the District recommended qualifications of us in the Willie Jones refused to talk to raised as was to assigned psychiatrists room was to be submitted where he brought object, Appellant on the parties. did to then went meet us. We ground prejudice, Gov- to one of the to the cell block to him and talked very psychiatrist briefly That barred door.” nominees. ernment’s рanel. (Emphasis supplied.) report2 named to was The nevertheless by saying: psychia- joint opin- objection cluded ion Further trist, the same “It is the to being named, undersigned, was fruitless. three that Willie after naming panel, affect, inappropriate Jones showed no In its order recog- fur- rather awas Doctors tense individual who [will] stated “the said report as wheth- nized the nish Court nature of the sentence that compe- mentally imposed er the defendant is now him and it was opinion our showing tent understand the was he properly coun- him his severe tension derstanding and assist and un- the realization happen sel and condition whether the mental what was to him.” The under- record the defendant is such that reflects that no action he has pun- been taken stands the and extent the trial court on the nature repоrt psychiatrists. filed ishment in to assist Court order determining here- whether the sentence I. imposed should be ex- tofore in this case ap- was We think there error (Emphasis supplied.) The or- ecuted.” proach to their counsel and Doc- der further “That the said stated: responsibility Law 87-423. under Public they do, may, tors if find need so em- de- universal Motivated almost psychologist psychologists ploy of the manda- mand for the elimination assist them in their examinations.” tory passed sentence, panel filed On November giving Public Law 87-423 right stating: conducted report, “We prescribe imprisonment its place on November Jones de- of death on of first Willie conviction evaluation of During report reads: entire and would come back. restless, “November contact with bim he brief Joseph frequently shrugged O. his shoulders and Honorable “The obviously. Judge. quite tense, McGarraghy, joint opinion Court “It is the three States District United undersigned, Jones showed Willie District Columbia affect, inappropriate and John but rather was a Avenue Constitution recognized Place, N.W. individual who na- Marshall tense Washington, had been im- D. C. ture of the sentence that McGarraghy: posed opinion Judge upon him and it was our “Dear undersigned, showing “We, sub- he was the severe tension three Jones, joint understanding mitting report on Willie our in the realization panel. happen you as a him. to see what was to our asked us whom completely of Willie that he is oriented evaluation conducted this We problem. Dis- at the understands nature on November Jones “Respectfully submitted, jail A.M. at 9:00 trict us to talk Robert H. refused Groh “Willie Jones /s/ Groh, assigned where Robert H. room M.D. Gavanagh brought R. with us. then John tо meet We /s/ Cavanagh, him R. block and talked to John M.D'. on to the cell went briefly through very the barred door. Albert E. Marland /s/ why Marland, Albert we were there and E. Sr. advised M.D.” He was under order Court it was ques- him to ask some Andres wanted See that we nothing said, T He to talk tions. die, (concurrring opinion (1948) about, going Mr. is am to all there Jus- I Frankfurter). say.’ nothing it, therefore, there’s to tice is to away and walked turned around He then persons gree reduction of so is denied. In to afford sentence murder. In order doing, executed, prior placed on the die, the burden court the but not condemned to moving defendant, party, opportunity show as passage an the Act the provi- enlightened reduced sentence should be its benefit from imprisonment. placement Congress sions, provided resentenc- life the for While judge of the in ing, giving dis- on thе is not sole burden the the trial spelled opinion, terms out in court’s a sentence the cretion to determine whether companion the imprisonment shall be case Coleman of imposed. death life or States,7 judge speak in decided under the same The Act does modifying” 87-423, Public “reducing Law as the leaves doubt terms or deny- position. There, to the court’s in to “[c]ases sentence. The Act refers ing motion, prior similar the court stated date tried effective [the counsel for for “It seems defendant: and which are before Act] perfectly to me purpose under stat- or clear that of sentence resentence.” you ute (Emphasis have not in supplied.) Com- shown circumstances House mitigation Report5 “resen- that would the Court refers to warrant mittee likewise doing pro- in tenсing.” other than “In of those what statute It states: vides, namely, carry may court out the sentence cases as come before which following was in resentencing effect affirmation to the effective deciding pro- appeal reason, date the statute.” in- or for other case, whereby judge stant the trial discretion referred to cedure is established precedent resentencing Coleman as a indicated vested in mitigation would principles follow the in there an- consider the circumstances aggravation nounced him. in end he is em- pen- impose powered death either put the Public Law does or, alty imprisonment.” (Emphasis proof upon the defendant burden of supplied.) Thus, import plain he should not be executed. show that “resentencing” language, in the Act judge, simply in resen- states that the legislative that, history, as in well discretion, tencing, “may, in his sole pre- law, if not in sentences effect mitigation and in viously imposed circumstances sider vacated.6 aggravation.” Re- The House Committee provided for Public Law 87-423 language: port explains “If fac- this resentencing of But his Willie Jones. outweigh aggravation those tors waiting counsel, instead of judge] impose mitigation, [the resentencing, to call the case for filed If, electrocution. sentence modify sen- a motion “to reduce judgment, factors in outweigh mo- And treated tence.” aggravation, he shall those such, opening his memorandum imprisonment.” impose of life a sentence denying opinion Congress placed motion: “This is a the burden on the Thus modify pur- reduce of all in- motion to itself relevant court to avail helpful 87- of Public Law suant to the in im- formation 22, 1962,” approved proper March and clos- posing sentence. “How far 423 ing ruling: age, sex, ignorance, motion for it with the “The ill- considerations was, course, meaning aware of if the statute were 6. Even being capital procedure provided doubtful, Rule F.R.Cr. case the By provid- P., reduction of sentence. to be resolved in doubt “resentencing” ing in Public Law Andres v. 87- of the defendant. favor States, developed supra Note for reasons text 333 U.S. at infra, deliberately it 92 L.Ed. 'chose Rule 35. not to use D.D.C., (appeal No. 163-60 Criminal 17, 176 H.R.Rep. Cong., D.C.Cir., 17,- pending No. 87th 1st Nos. Sess. S.Rep. Cong., 177). No. 87th See also 1st Sess. passion Assuming intoxication, of human Public or that Law 87-423 did ness clemency,or weakness, sympathy in fact or of or vacate the death of Jones, responsibility an sen- the of Willie resentеncing of the the irrevocableness executed apprehension death, that of an under Act would tence explanatory the unchanged. any may event, have be facts exist which full con- any brought light, other sideration of all facts not been to the in case was the required whatever, al- should be emotional torment that consideration —the produced weight question deciding crime, background such a lowed in the the defendant, prior record, any, the or should his if whether accused should by all, and most capitally punished, of is committed in be the circumstances of case, Congress condition, dis- sound the act8 to the his mental both at sentencing. the time cretion” of court. Winston of his act and the at 212, Only States, in-depth S.Ct. such U.S. consideration resentencing dis- judge comply that can the And L.Ed. 456 ad- the сretion should exercised with the mandate to “consider ag- doubts monition death cases that circumstances in “[i]n and in gravation.” presented as should be those here An- in accused.” resolved favor the II. supra dres v. Note United “resentencing” aspects Other 92 L.Ed. U.S. procedure require court attention. deter- examination ordered mental making resentencing court, in now men- “is mine whether the tally competent Thus the jury, pro- place to understand its determination ceedings against properly sur- facts assist required consider him doing, court was rounding as shown In so crime9 his counsel.” any acting pursuant infor- plus apparently additional Section record10 sentencing usually (a) District Columbia available to mation transcript “[wjhenever example, provides which that judge.11 Code For * * * clearly prior imposition sen- demonstrates his trial made at * ** appellant’s appear rival it victim tence that observations, appellant’s Under wife. own court’s the affections circumstances, prima submitted or from facie evidence these appellant’s condition is of un- the accused to the that what effect act, mentally incompetent resolved may his while on mind or is have had sound legal respon- pro- jury as to as to be unable understand so ceedings pri- crime, against sibility properly remained him or as- for his defense, mary determination in his sist owh consideration * * * proper committed to sentence. order the accused of a Reginald inter- cases that and Andres was in fear of Winters and Winston 8. The preted the na- . assaulted him on § he been U.S.C. equivalent Law 87-423 of Public testified on oc- occasions. He one tional degree severely mur- of first on he was beaten conviction casion punishment. prescribes sought arrest warrant deceased and der the 1111, however, against He also testified that 18 U.S.C. Winters. Under sentencing question, provision day approached he disagreement by approached bed, deceased him and event railing jury. pushed the bed appellant; he believed.at supra. Winston 9. See attempting moment the deceased was wound inflict a mortal him. He tes- Appellant on trial that he re- testified gun hospital he had taken the tified nothing shooting; of the actual membered presence. suicide to commit wife’s period long for a he time People having Williams v. of State of domestic trouble because 11. See New constantly seeing visiting York, wife was Reginald Winters; the deceased

R79 defense, failing hospital” for erred in make that mental observation [a] (b) Subsection determination. The also mental Government competency.12 helpful when provides if and concedes that it of this statute have compe- mentally considering to the matters in is found the defendant tent, may against him under criminal Public Law the case up-to- proceed. have had before it accurate concerning' date information mental the “resen proceeded to Here the court argues, condition of however, the defendant. appellant first determin tence” without eventually report ing under could whether the defendant proved compe- filed the defendant to be against him and proceedings stand the that, therefore, any рrocedural tent and mercy. plea for counsel in his assist his errors which the considering have made court sentencing, on motion a On or even should whether capital sentence, a particularly in reduce live or die were harmless. inarticulate, case, persuasive, if most making argument, the Govern- by plea mercy the de made is often gives reading ment rights. a casual Certainly sentenc himself. fendant The mere fact that a ex- ing should make sure court report amination filed does by jeopardized plea final for life is adjudication by amount to an helpless See defendant. mind of the that the is able to understand defendant F.R.Cr.P., 32(a), Hill v. United Rule proceedings against him and assist 7 L.Ed. 82 S.Ct. this, in his defense. But more than (1962); Green 2d any report not, in this case would 5 L.Ed.2d 670 365 U.S. (1961); any adju- event, predicate States, 98 U.S. Couch v. United dication. App.D.C. F.2d 519 resentencing court, Moreover, psychiatric panel Two members of the F.R.Cr.P., trary (1), 32(c) report proposed Rule did which filed the were presentence prosecution. it a psychia- have before re- not even port None of the making placed deci- proposed it in its awful to assist trists the defense was deciding panel. whether re- sion. Without on the The in which the manner sentencing judge’s panel psychiatric under the discretion court’s conducted its reviewable, Psychiat- interesting. his ac- is it is clear is Act evaluation also usually without consideration tion taken ric on a evaluations based proce- social, environmental, under the available information consideration of physical prescribed cannot be dures the Rule Such in- and mental factors. usually formation, part, sustained. most Psy- patient obtained himself.' III. chological testing ordinarily supplements testing concedes that under Government this information. The resentencing court, long usually proceed 24 D.C.Code for a observations § having period Hospital, exam- that mental determined of time. St. Elizabeths necessary example, prefers patient to ascertain ination was wheth- proceed- days psychiatric understood er the defendant when a committed for ings against psy- him and could assist required. evaluation is Here the expressed doubt, spite Any period probation,’ of its if he has reason applicability language, of 24 as to the to believe that the accused ‘is of unsound 301(a) prior incompetent mentally to sentence § D.C.Code mind or so as to Lynch Overholser, (cid:127)was dissolved to understand be unable ” page 718, But, him.’ as this court has page recently decided, application 301(a) 8 L.Ed.2d 211 § Court stated: “That section which the to effect commitment is not available permits 301(a)] proceeding D.C.Code where the criminal [24 has been ‘prior imposition Fisher, to the to act terminated. Cameron v. 116 ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍U.S. expiration App.D.C. 9, F.2d 731 very possible least, apparently too. At it is took evaluation chiatric observ- panel required limited and was few court would have seconds during ing patient time to seek which out more information on observation, prison Based on bars. predicate judgment in a matter as panel able psychiatric court’s serious as life death. showed report Jones Willie “that any We do not reach broad constitu- was a affect, rather inаppropriate tional recognized issues be concerned the na- who individual tense imposition penalty im- with the of the had been ture of the was our posed upon only that, him and it in this case. We would hold showing tension procedural severe errors, he was because the matter understanding of realization must remanded to the District Court happen resentencing him.” to what under Public Law 87- Jones refused that Willie It is true panel,

cooperate a circumstance cases. But re- in mental

not unusual psychiatric

sponsible evaluation interviewing par- patient,

limited cooperate.

ticularly A who will not one history patient should be

social background family

obtained, studied thereof Jones

and members interviewed. family here in District Co-

has patient Persons with whom the

lumbia. in- in constant contact also should be al., Oscar Appellants, F. COLLINS et jailers Jones’ last terviewed. years purpose. were available five YORK SYSTEM, NEW CENTRAL Moreover, to the commission of the Body Corporate, Appellee. A case, in this there was a full hear- offense No. 17563. ing the Mental Health before Commis- Appeals Jones was United States at the time committed for Court of sion District of Columbia Circuit. on observation mental certification of psychiatrists Commission that he three Argued Nov. reports There was insane. Decided Dec. many testimony psychiatrists at Jones’ trial. testified All or who provided panel would have these respect information with more condition than their

Jones’ few of observation

moments

prison Yet bars. none this informa- sought. even quite conceivable

It is that if the re-

sentencing had occasion to a determination

make

ability to understand him and assist in his defense report psychiat- the basis its rejected panel, it would have

ric its possibly panel report,

panel’s notes (1950); Harv.L 1189 72 Mich.L.Rev. 48 supra,. note 21 See . (1958). Rev. supra note Winston supra 24, Duffy, Phyle note 334 U.S. v. 313, 16, 215, U.S. at 19 S.Ct. at . 1136, 443, at 92 L.Ed. 1494. S.Ct. 456; People cf. Williams v. L.Ed. York, J., dissenting 246, ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍Frankfurter, 241, in Solesbe New State 26.e supra Balkcom, note 339 U.S. at 23-24, 94 L.Ed. 604. §75 primary passing insanity. upon sen- his reduce This the motion to defense court, sitting banс, tence. en his con affirmed viction, five to four. Jones We remand for further U.S.App.D.C. 276, 296 F.2d opinion. consistent with this denied, 398 (1961), cert. Reversed and remanded. 8 L.Ed.2d 406 July 16, 1962, Jones, On Judge, WRIGHT, whom Circuit counsel, Law filed motion under Public FAHY, BAZELON, Judge, Chief modify” “to reduce his manda- concurring Judge, join, the re- Circuit tory imprisonment. death sentence life sult: “request The motion also stated will 22, 1962, made On March be made that the Court authorize and capital change approach historic in its direct commitment to St. Elizabeths punishment Hospital period in the District of Columbia. for an extended to deter- mandatory Henceforth, capacity instead of a mine the mental of the defend- first death conviction ant appellant at this time.” On October degree murder, of death complete filed motion “for a imprisonment life will be submitted mental examination at this On time.” jury. pending 5, 1962, where the mandatory As to cases October the trial denied appellant’s modify sentence, death sentences motion to imposed executed, stating: my judgment but not “It is “may, discretion, mitigating cir- in his consider sole are no circumstances which aggrava- granting and in cumstances would warrant the Court in as to tion and make a determination motion to modify reduce or the sentence justifies and, therefore, the case in his whether the motion is denied.” imprisonment, being sentence of On appellant’s life reminded counsel yet event shall sentence defendant it had not ruled on imprisonment.” un- arises This case motion for examination, the court granted provision statute.1 der latter the motion for mental examina- tion. The court announced that it illiterate, Jones, an was сonvict- Willie appoint psychiatrists three pur- degree triangle for this first ed of slaying murder pose and asked counsel for the of his common- of a male friend and the sugges- mandatory Government to submit law He received wife. tions. in effect at time. death sentence shooting in a ward occurred On November counsel for each Hospital which the wife D. C. General psychiatrists. a list side filed of three committing patient. was a bed After day appointed On the same its crime, gun placed using Jones on the panel, psychiatrists two of the end of his wife’s bed and immediate- list, from the Government’s none from ly by hospital police. On trial arrested appellant’s, substituting a third Law 1. Public Stat. D.C. “Cases tried to March reads, pertinent part: Code and which are before the court for the punishment of murder purpose “The of sentence or resentence shall degree be governed by first electrocu- of law

Case Details

Case Name: Willie Jones v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Dec 13, 1963

Citation: 327 F.2d 867

Docket Number: 17485

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.