Winfred Overholser v. Herbert T. O'Beirne

Appellant OVERHOLSER, Winfred O’BEIRNE, Appellee. T.

Herbert

No. Appeals Court States Circuit. Columbia District

Argued June 19, 1961. Oct.

Decided Rehearing Banc Denied En for

Petition 8, 1962. Banc June En Harry Alexander, Asst. U. S. T. Mr. argument,

Atty., time of at Acheson, U. S. Messrs. David C. whom Atty., Duncan, T. Asst. U. and Charles brief, appellant. Atty., were on the for S. Atty., Belcher, Asst. U. S. Mr. Carl W. filed, Mr. the record time Atty., Paulson, Nathan J. Asst. U. S. appellant. appearances entered Arlington, (appoint- Kay, Va. Mr. Alan Court), appellee. ed the District Edgerton, Bur- Before Danaher Judges. ger, Circuit 8S3 Judge. BURGER, hearing anee. Circuit Prior to the now under review, Cavanagh reported Dr. made and appeal an Over Dr. Winfred This is diagnosis of the same basic condition holser, Superintendent of Elizabeths St. —sociopathic personality Washington, C., or Hospital, from an D. type. antisocial corpus proceeding direct der in a habeas undertaking O’Beirne, who Before release of Herbert T. of examination custody under findings, to the evidence in had committed relation to the following D.C.Code, 24-301, a verdict be useful to recall the reasons for persons on a guilty confinement of reason of found not charge.1 insanity. larceny he unsuc- Thereafter While the stat sought cessfully making oc mandatory on four ute his release such confinement 2 Early petition recent, go casions. in 1961 a fifth its antecedents back more century. corpus early filed re writ habeas was than As as Hadfield’s among ap case,4 things, questing, acting then, other and ever since courts independent pointment powers under of counsel and their inherent or under psychiatric The District statutes examination. have ordered confine granted appointed petition, ment of Court who were relieved of represent appellee appoint responsibility criminal counsel to because of their private psychiatrist, J. Cav mental ed a Dr. R. condition when criminal act anagh, an examination was done. punishment to conduct This was not for Cavanagh’s pro very report purpose since the providing to court. Dr. such recognized. are well fessional credentials verdict was excuse to the act and re Appellant, Superintendent penalties. of St. Eliza- lieve the actor from In its Hospital, development, in his return certified earliest beths confinement was primarily protection O’Beirne “has not recovered from society, knowledge re- mental condition and but as his abnormal medical increased and quires therapy further treatment before he can rehabilitation developed more community.” emphasis released into the On and more placed has been on the Super- prior appellant subject three occasions restoration life normal stigma Elizabeths had re- intendent St. filed free from the of a criminal record. substantially Roughly the same form de- turns those committed % scribing abnormal mental con- O’Beime’s since 1954 under this personality sociopathic dition as disturb- released, including statute have been complaint Municipal adequate 1. opportunity A filed Court had attempt have an grand charged larceny given O’Beirne with to establish that a fair rings, trial, principles and two applicable three wrist watches total- under ly corpus valued twelve hundred dollars habeas cases.” See Wash ($1200). Attorney ington’s opinion. The United Overholser, States O’Beirne v. prosequi upon felony U.S.App.D.C. 279, 281, entered nolle 287 F. charge and caused to be an Informa- filed 2d 135. Thereafter the District charging petit larceny O’Beirne with Court heard O’Beirne on this issue and the same items O’Beirne then en- concluded that “had a fair trial and plea guilty. lawfully guilty tered a Later his committed to Saint Eliza plea changed pursuant D.C.Code, was withdrawn and beths to 24 Section guilty; grand (Findings but this was after the lar- as amended.” Mar. charge ceny ) appeal had been dismissed and a 1961. No was taken. complaint required new would have been mandatory provisions 3. §of try charge. him on O’Beirne’s (Supp. 1960) adopt D.C.Code VIII were followed on October shortly ed in 1955 after the decision of 1957. this court Durham v. Upon appeal pre- from denial last A.L.R.2d ceding petition for writ of habeas cor- pus Hadfield, we remanded District 4. Trial of James Court 27 Howell’s hearing appellant may (K.B. 1800). conduct “so State Trials 1281 nothing E. For cases was intended homicide.5 less eight had by Congress nothing protect States, 1959, Hough U. will less v. United g., patient society from the hazards F.2d 458. S.App.D.C. expressly involved. statute makes mandatory- purpose of the The twofold safeguards process of the ancient never over- must confinement corpus habeas test the available to sub- patient recovery and looked, first, of the ject’s condition at and detention society pa- protection second, and time, subject, course, considerations to pro- ignore the need both To tient. thoroughly such as were canvassed “protective” equate or tections Overholser, 1950, U.S.App. Stewart v. 87 punishment con- hospitalization with 402, 406, 339, (en D.C. 186 343 F.2d grave a dis- does the issue and fuses banc). Congress adopting 24-301 § availability purposes social broad service 1955, providing for .the objectives statute, as well as the upon corpus any time, of habeas responsibility. That on criminal rule our proper showing, undoubtedly had in mind may hospitals few have too available the psychiatrists governing, seq. as 18 4241 U.S.C. et inadequate or or facilities may they appropriate use the that Under standards established in may techniques, or that some consider beginning series of cases with Overhol prisons, worse than institutions mental Leach,8 ser v. we have construed 24-301 § thought by some civil it is that that (g) requiring petitioner who seeks suggested by the standards statutory release without medical fac- should be used—all these dissent recovery (1) certification to show that legislative, are business tors (2) he has recovered his that government judicial branch not the recovery point has reached the is valid. Unless we are to statute where he has no abnormal mental condi 24-301 of the vio- that D.C.Code § hold reasonably tion which in the foreseeable re- the Constitution—and we have lates give danger future would petitioner rise to to the cently6 it does re said that not—our or to the event is ac sponsibility statute to release. mere fact that plain objectives. complish its dangerous propen so confined has some not, standing statutory scheme, alone, sities does warrant Inherent govern not, his continued proposi confinement in a we like whether “incurably mental ment under one insane” institution dangerous”—if “incurably propensities, D.C.Code. The there are and such—may noted, indefinitely.7 hospitalized as we have must be related to or Craig Ridge Steele, reports v. D.C.W.D.Mo. from 1955 Dr. Overliolser 5. F.Supp. 1954, 153; 30, 1961, 123 Kitchens v. 283 had been June Steele, D.C.W.D.Mo.1953, F.Supp. guilty by 112 reason of found 383; Higgins McGrath, 24-301; v. 92 D.C.W.D.Mo. under had been F.Supp. unconditionally 1951, 98 670. In the case of either or on con- released Report under §§ Dr. 18 U.S.C. Winfred 4244—4248 ditions. Over- judicial charge, superintendent holsor, but no of St. Elizabeths Stewart, Joseph Hospital, the accused has W. Clerk determination com- Mr. proscribed act, Court, August 3, 1961, mitted as is inherent dated of this Eile of of not in the Clerk’s verdict on file this case. in- sanity. Overholser, Ragsdale 1960, v. 108 U.S. 6. Ragsdale 1960, Overholser, v. 8. 108 U.S. 308, App.D.C. 281 F.2d 943. 308, 943; App.D.C. Overholser Russell, U.S.App.D.C. 400, v. 108 18 it has §§ Under U.S.C. 195; charged States, Starr F.2d v. crime but 283 been held one competent may 377; F.2d 105 trial be held 264 stand Leach, 1958, indefinitely custody Attorney U.S.App. Overholser develops F.2d certiorari he is D.C. 1959, denied if it incurable General proc- U.S. 79 S.Ct. a denial of due L. this is not and that opinions Ed.2d exhaustive See ess. sep condi- mental The District made no arise of an abnormal Court out findings arate formal of fact but at tion. See Starr v. United That F.2d 377. conclusion stated: may abnormal mental condition court “The finds and concludes precise consti- condition respondent’s that the refusal to file acquittal or it tuted the basis for his statutory certificate that would remaining ain be a residual condition petitioner lead the release of the patient improved. who has Hospital, from Saint Elizabeths arbitrary capricious; that the here, case, In the Leach petitioner is disease .sought by corpus free of the District habeas defect; therefore, that, mental hearing dis- Leach’s 'Court after ordered dangerous by he cannot be reason of charge. reversing Court, the District any defect; mental disease or mental Judge Washington speaking a unan- for and that he is entitled to an uncondi- including Edgerton, court, imous discharge hospital. tional from the said: The writ is sustained and the release “The test of this statute is not of the defendant ordered. The re- particular individual, whether a en- stayed days lease will oe for ten gaged ordinary pursuits in bring any enable the Government to life, is committable to a mental insti- proceedings civil or other to test the governing tution under the law civil petitioner if it deems it * * * commitments. Those laws wise to do so. This will con- ap- do plies here. This statute findings stitute the of fact and con- ” exceptional people to an class of * * * (Empha- clusions of law. —people who have committed acts added.) sis Overholser, O’Beirne v. by law, forbidden who have obtained D.C.D.C.1961, F.Supp. 652, 661- verdicts of ‘not reason of insanity,’ and who have been com- finding There is no that O’Beirne will pur- mitted to mental institution not be reasonably fore People Code. suant to the in that seeable finding future but that “he category by Congress are treated dangerous by cannot be reason of a different fashion from disease,” mental because he men has no have somewhat similar condi- mental tal finding, disease. course, This rests tions, but who have not committed on the District conclusion Court’s n offensesor obtained verdicts of not sociopathic personality disturbance is not .guilty by at crim- theory disease. Whether a mental this phrase inal trials. The ‘establish- not, rejected by correct eligibility release,’ for majority of this court. See Blocker v. .applied special class of which 1959, U.S.App.D.C. United member, something Leach is means n 63, F.2d 572. See also discussion of having from different one more of this condition in psychiatrists say classification simply Blocker that the in- States, 1961, dividual is ‘sane.’ must be There such abnormal 859-862. mental freedom as would make the condition individ- question The threshold is whether the dangerous to or the ual munity com- himself findings Court’s meet the District stand- reasonably foreseeable by 24-301 as ards of construed a unan- (Footnotes omitted.) future.” case, supra. imous court the Leach Overholser v. significant It is court’s effort Leach, emphasize the difference between 291-292, 257 F.2d 669-670. competence tried, to standards Findings responsibility of the District Court of criminal standards Cavanagh’s pre part in Dr. is found in from St. release standards hearing though report which states: written Leach’s “Thus, even we said: improved, diagnosis health case is “The condi abnormal sociopathic personality remains po aas source which is certified anti-social reaction. “ danger, retained he is * * * tential According to usual di- U.S. custody 24-301.” under Section agnostic standards, is, I be- this case F.2d 3, 257 App.D.C. note lieve, properly as Socio- classified comparison stand A note 3. pathic Personality Disturbance, An- ” under § have defined for we ards tisocial Reaction. findings challenged explains diagnosis fully as He more comply with a failure to discloses fact “a condition which is characterized standards. case Leach principally disorders behavior though However, stand- erroneous even by any particular phys- rather than Court, applied the District were ards ical or mani- emotional disturbance appropriately to see whether look we can patient. fested or It is felt sustain is sufficient evidence the findings required classified the American Medical by by statute the Psychiat- [sic, Association American (a) that decisions, evidence that is: our nomenclature, in ric Association?] point where appellee recovered has dealing portion that with mental con- mental from an abnormal free ishe along diseases, with other several (b) that his evidence dition disturbances.” public appellee expose or the would Cavanagh on Dr. went to make clear then reasonably danger foreseeable in the disagreement his with the St. Elizabeths future. Hospital on the issue of classification of Recovery Issue of on Evidence “sociopathic personality disorders” especially “mental diseases” in the con presented of the evidence All per a text of criminal case. He said a government that the effect is to sonality disturbance or disorder was not suffering presently from a opini a mental illness or disease in his shows that The record disease. on.10 He also indicated his view that diagnosis date was that at an earlier sociopathic cure for a almost no present psychosis; the from a he suffered Cavanagh personality. Dr. did not ex diagnosis that he from socio suffers press present that O’Beirne is disturbance, personality antisocial pathic ly normal mental of a condition. govern opinions of the reaction.9 question to the of whether answer against expressed psychiatrists are ment O’Beirne’s mental condition “is an ab long background he normal mental condition” said: interrupted Hospital escaped. certainly when O’Beirne intervals “I not believe would that average O’Beirne on the issue offered is like the Mr. O’Beirne evidence I of his mental health States. state citizen the United of the cleavage among shortly appellee’s deep psy after 1957 com 10. There is It was both clas that St. Elizabeths chiatrists on nomenclature mitment Many reject adopted and classification of the view that nomenclature sification. personality personality sociopathic psychopathic sociopathic dis as a “mental per Rosenfield, in In re D.C.D.C. disease” or that se See a “mental ease.” Appellee F.Supp. capacity control be lack of dicates sociopathic personality ap diagnosed havior. See Blocker v. United year U.S.App.D.C. 41, 47-48, proximately later. See also 288 F. one Overholser, 1958, 2d 859-860. We note that the term 104 U.S. Rosenfield sociopathic personality App.D.C. 322, is considered sub- 262 F.2d 34. stantially synonymous with the older term personality.” “psychopathic Leach, supra. merely ser v. think [103 don’t said a disease. what constitutes 670.] he shows disorder, personality It constitutes Viewing as a whole evidence rather, personality drawing most favorable inferences through acquired meth- which is background against O’Beirne but living od of and which so forth record, 12 or his extensive criminal ** onlyby is manifested behavior. govern confinements treatment merely I said that he has drug hospitals ment ad and alcohol I under- disease sense history long diction, psychiatric stand disease. testimony psychiatrists ****** hearing, impossible latest it would seem you going say “Well, “abnor consider does not now have an are condition, mal I am not a mental within the mean condition” sure I I that would. Leach case. emotional consider these to more But our com- conclusionthat record (Em- disturbances than mental.” holding pels a an ab- that O’Beirne has phasis added.) dispose normal mental condition does not very precise This witness was in his testi- must matter. We also determine making disagreement mony, support it clear his whether there is finding evidence to appellee’s was with the “label” and classification release will appellee’s agrees expose condition; danger him government ap- reasonably psychiatrists foreseeable future. pellee “sociopathic personality dis- Dangerous Propensities Evidence as to reaction”; turbance, antisocial does he government’s evidence this The on agree that this should con- is or be endanger that O’Beirne will both score is sidered a “mental disease.” public if he is released. himself respect With question that to wheth The O’Beirne’s evidence presently has, dangerous terms, er O’Beirne an would to him and to the be overwhelming. govern- Every appellee “abnormal mental of condition” is psychiatrist fered no evidence. On this score there so testified and ment genuine testimony expert Moreover, no conflict.11 this O’Beirne’s does at- suffering tempt pos- held court has that a to contradict this. As to drug “sociopathic personality from disturb addiction Dr. sible return anagh Cav- 12 ance, has an “ab said that “if has off of antisocial reaction” he drugs normal Overhol- 1957 it would most un- mental condition.” See since be acknowledged 63, Judge U.S.App.D.C. 1959, 11. 274 The District this: 107 my concurring opinion any is not F.2d “Then there difference psy diagnosis States, 1961, v. United U.S. between Blocker App.D.C. 41, respective sides here. 288 F.2d 857. chiatrists opinion, any, only difference of convictions, record includes O’Beirne’s from the is what inference is to be drawn commencing grand larceny, diagnosis.” Record, p. 61. petit larceny, pretenses, vagrancy, false drunkenness, disorderly conduct, eva Onr individual views as whether a draft sociopathic personality should, sion, obtaining forg forgery, disorder narcotics per se, exculpate uttering, an accused from and other re violations sponsibility laws, for criminal behavoir when well as 12 more the narcotics or testimony undisputed expert United Public is be commitments States point; Lexington, side the this court under the com Health Service Kentucky. Douglas application of abnormal bined Manifestations States, 1956, many condition take forms. States, 1959, F.2d Durham v. United and the Blocker cases See Misenheimer question seemingly has cer resolved that affirmative, judges expressing U.S. three tiorari denied 80 S.Ct. contrary view. See 4 L.Ed.2d 550. Blocker v. United Considering go *. on both all the evidence back likely he would that guess.” only direct of the crucial issues the record thus On However, this shows: asked: he was examination agree (1) taking that Cavanagh, into All medical witnesses “Q. Dr. per- soeiopathic past petitioner’s O’Beirne suffers from consideration sonality addiction, reaction. drug antisocial history with government expert he witnesses state that record, fact and the criminal escaped hence this plainly four is a “mental on disease” you occasions, condition.” do “abnormal mental five different appointed con- wheth- court witness does Doctor, as opinion, have an sider reason- a “mental petitioner disease.” this or not er would future foreseeable able government’s [sic] (2) The medical witness to others to himself categorically this states release at that I would A. were released? if he expose will others time O’Beirne and question in to answer danger have way: repeated behavior antisocial I do not I have testified acts; ap- court criminal O’Beirne’s men- has a Mr. O’Beirne believe pointed expert express a fixed refused to therefore, and, I would tal illness opinion on his future behavior. by saying my qualify answer have to therefore, On this record basic find- I feel psychiatrist, since as a ings essential have not been to release illness, I don’t has no mental made. go likely that he is think The issue now is not whether O’Beirne things ill- because these has “mental whether disease” but going to his behavior is ness. What has an “abnormal mental condition” way I no future dangerous to which will cause him to be crystal But knowing, ball. I no himself or others if The dif released.14 say with- ishe that since I can ficulty partly one of semantics ques- disease, out deeper “labels” but it is also than that. answer, expect to I would which The District used a “disease- will illness he has no eligibility defect” standard to determine necessarily things bring these but use 24-301 does release not about.” already standards and Leach case has context, some answer, of bears out This analysis. defined what the statute means. scrupulously The witness District Court must those stand saying and the court with candid ards as defined in Leach case. does not believe he that since this: pointed we out the Leach As illness, un- he a mental has O’Beirne Ragsdale opinions, pre- and sumed, it must be term, believe does not he derstands that certainly hoped, that a con- dangerous a because bewill finement a St. Elizabeths after verdict cate- But witness mental illness. guilty by insanity, of not reason of will predict what gorically refused bring improvement and about an recov- fu- in the ery would be behavior he can O’Beirne’s the individual so resume society danger testimony place without to himself we consider his ture. When Underlying public. opinions light we or our most favorable O’Beirne Ragsdale gains sup- Leach, appellee’s Starr cases case little nd the recognition ort, any, obvious a re- on his claim that if released is covery ills does not from mental come to himself or will e dealing overnight; are here we others. The critical issue here is commitment. context is immaterial this changed whether his condition his Elizabeths’ staff official dangerous. sociopaths' now will within the classification appellee’s category mental disease after

gcw penal Prompt appendix rather than context. con diseased an like a affliction gressional mandatory surgical a brief operation and enactment of the where a invariably provision fol- D.C. of § are almost convalescence Recovery recovery. be- Code made by this certain. lowed ills, what- havior disorders or think, fundamentally wrong, It is we use, slow we ever names labels to person of a sick measure the treatment needs rarely pre- dubious at best and is length penal sen- physical dis- aof as the course dictable tence he would had he have received Judge Washington’s choice ease. punishment, for in the been excused from mental condition” words “abnormal eyes com- the law such a thoughtless, but Leach was not casual or how no us mitted crime. tell Statutes concept That and calculated. studied long a stat- sentence should be but neither may patient like O’Beirne means that a how utes nor medical books can tell us undisputed progress true and from a hospitalization effect much needed to psychosis, such as “mental disease” dissenting opinion rehabilitation. The formerly had, present un- to his which he regard “paying his seems to O’Beirne as personality “sociopathic disputed state society” stay Eliza- debt to in St. But reaction.” antisocial beths is that when the truth re- qualify him for does not that result lease; If “punishment.” in no sense until the released cannot be being precisely the paid, debt is it is point recovery process reaches the nearly this; reverse it would be more expose him or others release will not discharging say society correct to danger. emphasized We obligation procedure to O’Beirne in the saying Ragsdale opinion in by Congress established him to assure improved psychiatric public expense. ma patient care “A good pros terially appear dissenting opinion to in- seeks pect mem a useful for restoration as process troduce into the civil standards society; an “abnormal ber of but if committability by Mental Health poten him condition” renders Commission conflict with direct tially dangerous, medical reasonable congressional plain expressed in intent judicial doubts doubts reasonable thing argue It 24-301. is one that con- pub in favor of the are to be resolved finement after verdict subject’s safe lic and in favor insanity, special without a ” * * * Ragsdale ty. v. Overhol contemporaneous hearing, ais violation , ser, 1960, U.S.App.D.C. 312 process; quite propo- of due it is another 943, 947. say sition to that as as the soon dissenting opinion meet does not confinement the maximum sen- exceeds issue in case but rather central the the guilty person, for a tence will review we years in St. essence that asserts 3% problem proceed- and shift the into civil too much constitutes designed, ing not the Leach as year for a one offense.15 confinement out, persons pointed deal with very approach heart strikes at the This acts. The to rehabilitate malad the effort of the process civil commitment while available purpose justed offender. of the of kinds aberrant for some conduct was responsibility, criminal standard to" deal established jurisdiction 1954, adopted for this did dangerous propensities and whose exculpa broaden the area of than more relevancy come into focus and responsibility; illnesses from criminal it also tion they contemplated commit what in a otherwise rehabilitation medical when would plea guilty year he entered to the “one must remember that O’Beirne We supra. 1, charged Note See with the more serious offense offense.” larceny grand dismissed when bearing.” in- tical an O’Beirne acts. be criminal (Footnotes omitted.) dividual ordinary pursuits “engaged reasonably the It clear seems life, men- committable to a bearing” Edgerton [who] “practical Judge re govern- law under the tal institution issues ferred to in the context of the ** ing Those civil commitments. Taylor greater the likeli case17 was the laws do here.” Overholser jury accept claim hood the would Leach, supra. v. they insanity accused if the knew medi some would not be Moreover, set free without pointed Leach out the as being given Ragsdale cal him attention because person cases, confined and the remedy. by claimed condition.. any his abnormal mental is not means without by Lyles 1957, U.S. In challenge v. United He is his confinement free App.D.C. 22, de corpus 254 F.2d certiorari time.16 resort to habeas nied, 1958, long all, 356 U.S. 78 S.Ct. After regarded the Great has .Writ require among L.Ed.2d we safe reaffirmed as the ultimate jury manda guards liberty ment that tory be told of the con individual hospital. stitutionality in a confinement 24-301 was saved of § availability by part at least constant Judge- expressed position corpus proper See of habeas in a case. course, Edgerton is, his dissent Curry Overholser, 1960, U.S. sharply Taylor position in the- at odds with his App.D.C. 283, 287 F.2d 137. Lyles we to- cases. Were Taylor States, 1955, 95 U. v. United adopt present position in- it would S.App.D.C. 373, explain upon judges cumbent trial jury what must be told pe- held we jury to the that “within a reasonable who is found an accused vary becomes riod from case to- of time which will insanity guilty reason of un- case” continued speaking court, Edgerton, said: pro- for require a civil der 24-301 would § “ * * * ceeding Act, D. under the Mental Health an think that when we seq. is at It insanity, 21-301 et pleaded C.Code has accused arguable “practical” mat- least may judge in- and the should counsel enlarged cautionary instruc- ter jury acquitted he is that if form by jurors will- be less well cause pre- could he will be may reach a of not verdict con- sumed be insane underlying pur- insanity. The reason of pose “hospital in a fined long the insane” 24-301 and instruction called safety as “the Taylor Lyles Though cases require. welfare” [his] jurors bearing should thus thwarted has no on the fact theoretical prac- guilty jury’s on an accused verdict it verdict render a suggestion before dissent the merits there was reached opin- other, court, due been confined without form or in one sanity psychiatrists process on issue of his the St. Elizabeth’s ions of scarcely compatible re- with the read had not record that O’Beirne to the effect presently governing light the terms of and was covered potentially his In as court. reason construed statute passing hearings on held on Hence in various O’Beirne’s condition. the petitions habeas'corpus petitions was the ultimate of the there merits the implicit question finding underlying the Court that the whether the District issue sanity superintendent not hospital his had recovered the was action O’Beirne arbitrary capricious presently potentially was and whether he was or and that dangerous. his recovered and had O’Beirne then future in foreseeable Taylor prior case to the en- arose dangerous. likely In be each of in manda- 24-301 its § actment of hearings where District Court earlier tory form. m way responsible must in held not the same in should be with the fact per- larceny insanity. force to are same without violence as We because Congress position es- to a this court crime of violence until suaded that the speaks Ragsdale Super- Leach, oth- otherwise. Of course the in tablished might very aban- intendent cases, recent, of St. Elizabeths well should er all account, making appraisal take into doned. potential danger, quality of the arguing “was In that O’Beirne patient’s abnormal mental condition as Judge Edger- found to have been insane” history well as of conduct. But as only positions own ton overlooks not pointed Russell, we out Overholser v. Taylor Lyles eases, supra, but appears ir- or consider to overlook large endangers passer a “bad check” affirma- O’Beirne relevant the fact that by exposure himself additional viola- insanity upon tively urged the defense arrests, tions and additional trials and court, evidence the trial and it was his say nothing confinements, to of the seri- persuaded that the court. His retained predatory ous effect on the of his as the defense counsel offered tendencies. psychiatric behalf evidence O’Beirne’s suffering opinions defendant had been of the that face psychiatrists a mental disease at the time of on both that O’Beirne sides probably now of the crime and that committable under commission argument product procedures, crime was of this mental dis- the civil that gov- longer rested. he should not held ease. The defense then without a that civil commitment the familiar ernment offered no evidence conten free of mental when tion of those who “want to have O’Beirne was disease it both ways.” yield On the To to that view the crime was committed. basis would mean sociopathie personality then found of this record Scott disturbance a valid constitutes defense to a criminal O’Beirne charge hospital him Eliza- and ordered but is not basis for con Hospital pursuant However, beths to 24-301 D.C. finement under 24-301. § Findings Fact O’Beirne Code amended. See whether is now committable un proceedings and Conclusions of Law filed March der civil is not issue. Corpus Congress prescribed procedure, in Habeas before Judge. Holtzoff, J., statute, District has construed the court we procedure not free to use different are suggestion that civil mental health prepared we are hold unless procedures, their Ragsdale the Constitution. violates “greater procedural safeguards,” are a Overholser, 6, supra. note remedy appropriate more seems to rest Reversed. on the idea committed a “non-dangerous But offense.” to de EDGERTON, Judge (dissent- Circuit jewelry scribe the theft of watches and ing). “non-dangerous” danger is to confuse Larceny usually with violence.18 less I think the District Court erred finding assault, appellee violent than murder but had no mental dis- public policy finding purpose terms of or defect also in ease Larceny, appellant’s the same as statute is both. refusal to file a certificate dangerous; arbitrary. But, reasons, assault and murder are all for other they simply agree pro are different areas of I with the District Court legal appellee’s pres- hibited conduct. Hence basis for unless we is no are ignore objectives policies and that should ent discharged question, provisions from the unless statute with- * * * charged rings STEAL, TAKE 18. The information 2 did that O’Beirne * * * * * “with force and 3 CARRY AWAY arms watches AND 862 usage. brought to this In both States illustrate days proceedings are ten jury should be af- those cases we said sanity. the therefore I would his test you told in substance: “Unless believe court’s order. the firm beyond a reasonable either doubt “not Though appellant found was 1. suffering from a [the was accused] insanity” by was he guilty reason condition, diseased or defective mental As insane. have been to

found product or that the act was not the Lynch: Fahy v. in Overholser said you abnormality, such find ac must the finding such no was “There insanity.”1 cused not assumption underlay on which the mandatory The 2. re U.S.App.D.C. Overholser, 82 v. Orencia quirement corresponding by 763, was 285, F.2d decided 163 requirements of the Columbia District of U.S.App.D.C. 404, 413 note 109 court.” Code, only apply literally, read when (dissenting 388, 6, 397 6 note 288 F.2d the accused is found trial have to granted, U.S. 366 opinion), certiorari offense, insane been at the of the time 1936, 1252. 958, 6 See L.Ed.2d 81 S.Ct. and therefore do not U.S.App. Overholser, 109 v. O’Beirne provides case. person Code that “If 133. 287 F.2d D.C. upon tried an in indictment or Supreme Court ruled 1895 that offense, formation for an or tried in the including evidence, “If the whole juvenile court District of Columbia by sanity, presumption supplied offense, acquitted solely for an on beyond not exclude reasonable doubt does ground that he was insane at time hypothesis insanity, of which commission, of its the court shall order adduced, person proof is accused en- such some be confined in a mentally ill.” acquittal specific 69 to an of- Stat. 610 of the titled (1955), 24-301(d) D.C.Code charged. (Supp. guilt His cannot said fence be 1960), (emphasis (cid:127)VIII added). beyond Section proved been have a reasonable * *." (e) requires, 24-301 person’s for the re Davis United v. doubt lease, by superintendent a certificate 469, 488, S.Ct. 160 U.S. hospital “(1) person such words, be in order to 499. other L.Ed. has recovered sanity, (2) that, acquittal reason entitled opinion of superintendent, per such insanity question, the accused need son will not in the reasonable be If, be- been insane. future found have be dangerous to or others *.”2 himself reasonable doubt as to his san- cause Only formerly one who was can insane sane, ity, is not found have sanity”. “recovered his acquitted. applied We must be many v. expression times. Blocker United rule And the “will not in the U.S.App.D.C. dangerous 288 F.2d States, 110 future reasonable him phrase “not cited. cases self or others” seems to show that Con insanity” gress guilty speaking used reason guilty dangerous of “not in the sense (cid:127)our courts had offenses. insanity question”, e., i. danger had not committed a reason sanity proved Petty guilty larceny, was not because not beyond ous offense. which he tried, property doubt. Durham v. reasonable theft of worth Blocker United The maximum States than term of $100.3 less 228, 241, others”, U.S.App.D.C. himself 1430; shall his release. court order A.L.R.2d 41, 42, F.2d grand larceny. 81,200, pro- which would paragraph 3. Not statute 2. This (1953), amended, D.C. 67 Stat. in its discretion the court vides that (Supp. hearing §§ VIII “if court finds that Code hold a 1960). recovered the reasonable and will future

$63 Congress U.S.App.D.C. page 288 at F.2d at imprisonment authorized page year.4 interpret 396. And larceny This if we are to petty one § “dangerous” broadly 24-301 meaning, hardly appropriate more than for a its literal be go beyond case respect we should not so far offense. In this supra, Lynch, meaning its literal v. as to raise serious is much Overholser like dissenting, Judge Fahy, said: constitutional doubts. If it in be’assumed charged person appellee, the that a to who is to found “The offenses have done each, dangerous act, cashing ‘bad checks’ of also is $50 of two found to dangerous insane, may with constitutionally have been character were not of be (e). meaning There to a in section 301 until he sanity sec “has recovered his conditions of will fore the release not in appellee’s dangerous apply in case foreseeable future tion do not be justi others”, himself be his continued restraint cannot it does not follow that one who has that section.” fied under criteria of been found to have dangerous page 413, U.S.App.D.C. done a 288 F.2d act 109 at and has been found may page have been 397. at insane be re longer period strained for a than is rea may in- 3. words “was It sonably required to determine in a civil (d) “has in and the words sane” 24-301 § proceeding whether reason to sanity” (e) in recovered 24-301 § restrain him. Valid restraint of such a literally. should not be read Overhol- person for an period indefinite should did not read liter- ser v. Leach we them depend “upon finding, yet made, never ally, but held order to establish he is unsound upon mind and not (e) eligibility for release under 24-301 § meeting the conditions ap for release corpus, must a writ of habeas “There plicable persons committed under sec be freedom from abnormal 301(d).”5 If it be consistent with individual condition as would make the process appellee’s due to treat acquittal community to himself or the larceny petty “by insanity” reasonably foreseeable future.” creating temporary as pre- rebuttable 289, 292, U.S.App.D.C. F.2d sumption that he danger- was insane and Congress Perhaps chos- 670. would have offense, ous at the time of the it does not matter, en, considered if it had follow that is consistent with due persons apply to who are make 24-301 process to confine him in a mental hos- acquitted because there is reasonable years pital for any for life without sanity. But their “There as to doubt having finding made, ever Congress suppose intended no reason any court, proceeding in that he was in- any danger- accused of sane. and not found un- offense to be of ous Congress indefinitely provi- be held has should 4. sound mind against * * made broad in a mental for the civil his will institution sions commitment of insane Dissenting Judge opinion District of Columbia. Ei- Fahy Lynch, supra, nearest v. 109 ther “the in Overholser relative or friend avail- vary (1937), amended, case, 4. D.C. which will 50 Stat. case to con- 1960). (Supp. dependent VIII tinued Code made upon proceedings, civil commitment opinion Judge Dissenting Fahy 5. procedural greater safeguards, their Lynch, supra, U.S.App. v. Overholser indefinitely upon left rest alone pages pages 288 F.2d at D.C. under section 24L301 397-398. Concurring Judge Fahy an accused entitled to ac- “Since Overholser, Ragsdale v. quitted ground insanity although on 943, 950, merely may jury the evidence have led the expressed Bazolon the same a reasonable doubt to entertain concurring view, result Over- occurred, when offense Russell, holser (cid:127) require process due well F.2d * * * time, that within reasonable judge sane, jury find, public of- if a the any or shall so one of various able”, or * * * person he in commit as “may apply an order the insane ficers, alleged his discretion for the best shall find to be commitment of insane-, interests of and of the Colum- the person District of insane bia, person.” (1939), filing D.C.Code' Stat. 1296 District Court (1951). 21-315 § District of Colum- for the petition States therefor, contain- a verified bia is statutes “insane” in these word upon facts a allegation statement psychotics. Dr. Overhol not limited is based.” persons in the follow us that ser informs ing (1939), 21- D.C.Code 1293-1294 § among Stat. categories, nonpsychotic oth Proceedings may (1951). likewise civilly committed; ers, may “mental petition upon com- “instituted personality deficiency, psychoneurosis, the District Columbia missioners diagnosed disorder, as and certain eases of al- to determine mental condition syndrome psycho- with chronic brain indigent leged persons per- insane and reaction”. neurotic alleged insane, to be with homicidal sons us all Dis He informs that 7% otherwise tendencies resident admissions to trict of Columbia ** (1905), 33 Stat. 740 D.C.Code year Elizabeths the fiscal St. were (1951). A Commissionon Men- diagnosed nonpsychotic in one of the Health is directed to al- tal “examine groups, that all and these were involun * * * persons leged make insane tary Though civil commitments. it was reports and recommendations appellee’s proved petty trial for necessity treatment, to the as larceny court that he either or dan insane payment commitment, gerous, ex- is there much evidence that he maintenance and is I think pense of treatment of now both. the facts now be suggest persons.” strongly person insane Stat. fore us that his such amended, ality disorder, D.C.Code 21-308 (1938), “soeiopathic personality a jury is type”, Provision made for a (1951). disturbance, antisocial is serious judge enough permit “If the sat- if demanded. his commitment as trial alleged person proceeding.6 insane in- in a civil is insane But wheth- that isfied regard procedure? Cavanagh civE I does not a socio- Witness. do not Dr. short, personality would it pathic disturbance as a men- think be.” diagnosis, accordingly generic disease, without more evi- testified that bare dence, tal enough. regarding thought a disturbance is But he O’Beirne, petitioner type is much more has” evidence “of diagnosis, subject bare than the Dr. to commitment in a Owens not be opinion hand, expressed proceeding. a definite other about him. On the Dr. civil asked, opinion you “do think that He Mr. the official of St. shares Owens condition such as O’Beirne’s is to war- that such disturb- Elizabeths disease, rant his John his testi- Howard a mental is ance “pavillion”, probable highly mony Pavillion?” stand, I under- it that if he makes security part asked, a maximum would have said he he had Hospital. subject Dr. Owens to commitment St. plied: re- thinks certainly although proceeding, “I most do at he this time. does in a civil episode explained, regarding the most all As I recent hold pa- “soeiopathic permitting diagnosis person- he was [was] when other whom ality usually charged type” ap- fee, vodka, tients for antisocial turning per- distinguishes to leave the other some such plied. He seriously patients following ill others, out because more collo- sons possession. key certainly sociopath, Doctor, in his I quy had A “Q. shows: * * * requires type, man secur- civE- think he committable antisocial ity.” depend Klinger, if Dr. Chief of Well, And ly? this would I think A. Service”, Elizabeths “West Side had been The Court. But individual case. on each witness, diagnosis just you as a would have testi- called suppose “substantially soeiopathic personality man is here, suf- you fied as disturbance, soeiopathic fering personality type, from a dis- is that in it- antisocial turbance, type, antisocial is a warrant sufficient self

^5 in a civil he can be committed er proceeding proceeding, such a without legal my opinion for is in no basis

his continued confinement.

WAREHOUSEMEN AND MAIL ORDER EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. INTER NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WARE HOUSEMEN AND OF HELPERS AMERICA; Drivers, and Truck Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Union, Workers Local International Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

Brotherhood of Helpers Warehousemen and of Ameri ca, Petitioners,

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 16267. Appeals

United States Court of District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept.

Decided Jan. Dunau, Washington, C., Mr. Bernard D. petitioners. Brown, Jr., Atty.,

Mr. Allison W. Rothman, with whom Stuart Messrs. Counsel, Manoli, Gen. Dominick Assoc. L. Counsel, Mallet-Prevost, Gen. Marcel Counsel, Joseph Asst. Gen. Thack- C. ery, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, brief, respondent. on the were Washington Prettyman, Before Danaher, Judges. Circuit DANAHER, Judge. Circuit fully captioned More identified as above, Warehousemen, Local Drivers, the Truck Local ask us to aside set the Board’s Decision and Order dismissed a consolidated unfair illness, and that he dan- Cf. footnote gerous if released at time.” court.

Case Details

Case Name: Winfred Overholser v. Herbert T. O'Beirne

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

Date Published: Jun 8, 1962

Citation: 302 F.2d 852

Docket Number: 16352_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.