Greenwood v. United States, 15149.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Citation219 F.2d 376
Docket NumberNo. 15149.,15149.
PartiesEarl P. GREENWOOD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Decision Date14 February 1955

William J. Burrell, Kansas City, Mo. (appointed by District Court), submitted brief for appellant.

Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and O. J. Taylor, Asst. U. S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., submitted brief for appellee.

Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and SANBORN, WOODROUGH, JOHNSEN, COLLET, VOGEL, and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The questions for decision are (1) whether a person in federal custody, charged by indictment or information with a federal offense, lawfully may be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States under Sections 4246, 4247 and 4248 of Title 18 U.S.C., if such accused person, in conformity with the procedure prescribed by Section 4244 of Title 18 U.S.C., is found by a federal district court to be insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial and it appears that his insanity or mental incompetency is more than temporary and is or may be permanent; and (2) whether the provisions of the above referred to Sections are unconstitutional, as encroachments upon powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, or as violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court entered July 30, 1954, committing the defendant (appellant) to the custody of the Attorney General: "(1) until the sanity or mental competency of the defendant shall be restored; (2) until the mental condition of the defendant is so improved that if he is released he will not endanger the safety of the officers, the property, or other interests of the United States; or, (3) until suitable arrangements can be made for the custody and care of the defendant by the State of Ohio, the State of the accused's residence * * * whichever event above stated shall first occur." See United States v. Greenwood, 125 F.Supp. 777, 778.

The facts are virtually undisputed. The findings of fact of the District Court, upon which the order is based, are sustained by substantial evidence. The only finding challenged is that relating to the danger of releasing the defendant. That challenge is without merit.

The importance of the questions presented and the divergent views of federal judges who have considered them require a more detailed statement of the facts than would ordinarily be justified, since the facts illustrate an important segment of the problem that the statutes under review were enacted to meet.

The defendant is under indictment by the federal grand jury for the Western District of Missouri. The indictment, which was returned November 20, 1952, charged him with having on October 22, 1952, in a Post Office in Kansas City, Missouri, committed two offenses proscribed by Section 2114, Title 18 U.S.C.: (1) felonious assault upon a custodian of mail and other property of the United States with intent to rob, and (2) the armed robbery of such custodian.

The defendant was arrested in Cleveland, Ohio, where he resided. Upon his application, the case was transferred, under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., to the Northern District of Ohio for plea and sentence. The United States District Court for that District on February 2, 1953, ordered that the defendant be removed and his case remanded to the Western District of Missouri, because a psychiatric examination and hearing indicated that he was not mentally competent to understand the proceedings against him. The defendant was received by the United States Marshal in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 7, 1953.

The District Court for the Western District of Missouri on February 17, 1953, ordered the Marshal to deliver the defendant to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, for an examination and report as to his mental condition. The first report is dated April 8, 1953, and is signed by Doctor C. E. Smith, Medical Director. The report, among other things, recites that in 1945 the defendant was arrested for robbery, and shortly thereafter for assault; that in 1946 he received a one to twenty-year sentence to the Mansfield State Reformatory, Mansfield, Ohio, on a forgery charge; that he freely admitted holding up the Post Office in Kansas City; that thereafter he held up a Post Office in Cleveland, but was not prosecuted for the latter offense because a psychiatric examination showed he was a mental case. The report diagnosed the defendant's condition as "Schizophrenic Reaction, undifferentiated type, Acute," and stated that in the examiner's opinion the defendant was "legally insane."

A second report, dated January 26, 1954, from the Neuropsychiatric Staff of the Medical Center gave the same diagnosis of the mental condition of the defendant, omitting the word "Acute" and stated:

"The Neuropsychiatric Staff agreed unanimously that the patient remained psychotic and incompetent. The Staff agreed that the patient\'s illness is chronic, of long-standing and that the prognosis for recovery is poor. The Staff recommends that the committing court be advised that our findings indicate that it is unlikely that this subject will regain his sanity in the near future. Therefore the Neuropsychiatric Staff recommends that consideration be given to transferring this subject to a state hospital in his state of residence."

The Board of Examiners of the Medical Center in a report dated February 4, 1954, stated that the Board concurred unanimously in the opinion that the defendant remained psychotic and incompetent, and agreed that "the subject might be considered potentially dangerous to the extent that if released he might conceivably persist in criminal activities of the type with which he is presently charged." The Board in its report noted that efforts were being made to arrange for the custody and care of the defendant in a state hospital, and recommended that he be considered a suitable candidate for such care if arrangements could be made.

In May of 1954, at the direction of the District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the defendant was transferred from the Medical Center to the custody of the appropriate authorities of the State of Ohio for commitment to a State hospital. The State authorities apparently had the defendant examined by a psychiatrist on the staff of the Probate Judge in Cleveland. The examiner concluded that the defendant was not "insane in a legal sense," and he was released by the state authorities. He was retaken into federal custody under an alias warrant issued by the District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Upon the return of the defendant to Missouri, the District Court appointed William J. Burrell, of the Kansas City, Missouri, bar, to represent him. On June 18, 1954, Mr. Burrell filed a motion for the appointment of psychiatrists and for a hearing as to the defendant's mental competency, pursuant to § 4244, Title 18 U.S.C. The court on June 23, 1954, appointed two psychiatrists to examine into the mental condition of the defendant and make report. On July 2, 1954, the court ordered the authorities at the Medical Center to re-examine the defendant with respect to his mental condition and competency. On July 8, 1954, the Neuropsychiatric Staff of the Medical Center made a report, from which we quote the following:

"Diagnosis: Schizophrenic Reaction, undifferentiated type, chronic severe, manifested by tension, depression, confusion in thought, blocking of the thought processes, feelings of unreality, suicidal preoccupation, delusional ideas of influence, auditory hallucinations, and impaired insight and judgment.
"Conclusions: In view of these findings the psychiatric staff concurred unanimously in the opinion that the subject remains legally insane by reason of a major mental disorder which would prevent him from having a proper understanding of the proceeding pending against him and which also impairs his ability to properly assist in his own defense. They are further agreed that this subject\'s prognosis for recovery appears to be poor and that he will probably require indefinite hospitalization to insure his own safety and that of society. The staff does not consider the subject to be potentially dangerous except to the extent that if released, he might persist in engaging in criminal activities similar to those with which he is presently charged."

On July 15, 1954, the District Court conducted a hearing, under Section 4244 of Title 18 U.S.C., as to the mental competency of the defendant. The defendant was present in person and was represented by counsel appointed for him by the court. The two psychiatrists appointed by the court to examine the defendant testified that in their opinion the defendant was not insane or mentally incompetent to stand trial. Dr. Charles E. Smith, Chief of the Psychiatric Service at the Medical Center, testified at the hearing in support of the diagnosis made and conclusions reached by the Neuropsychiatric Staff of the Medical Center in their report of July 8, 1954, and in prior reports that the defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial.

The court on July 30, 1954, entered the order under review, in which it found: (1) that the defendant was insane and mentally incompetent to stand trial; (2) that if released he probably would endanger the safety of officers, the property, or other interests of the United States; and (3) that no suitable arrangements for the custody and care of the defendant, other than commitment to the custody of the Attorney General, were presently available.

The court granted the defendant leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the order of July 30, 1954. Mr. Burrell, who, on his own time and at his own expense, admirably represented the defendant in the District Court, has furnished us with an excellent brief on behalf...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • U.S. v. Volungus, Civil Action No. 07-12060-GAO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 27, 2009
    ...a mentally incompetent accused whose incompetency to stand trial is or may be permanent or of indefinite duration. Greenwood v. United States, 219 F.2d 376, 386 (8th Cir.1955). The Eighth Circuit answered that question affirmatively.6 Id. at Reaching what it called "the narrow constitutiona......
  • U.S. v. Cohen
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 4, 1984
    ...federal crimes.... 19. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4246, 4247 (1976). The constitutionality of this measure was upheld in Greenwood v. United States, 219 F.2d 376 (8th Cir.1955) (en banc), aff'd, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412 20. United States v. Clark, 617 F.2d 180, 184 n. 5 (9th Cir.1980)......
  • U.S. v. Tom
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 13, 2009
    ...United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412 (1956), which affirmed a decision of this court, see Greenwood v. United States, 219 F.2d 376 (8th Cir.1955) (en banc), is also instructive. Greenwood had been indicted on a federal offense but found incompetent to stand trial. Greenw......
  • United States v. Comstock
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 17, 2010
    ...the Department of Justice. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 373, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412 (1956); Greenwood v. United States, 219 F.2d 376, 380–384 (C.A.8 1955) (describing the committee's work). The committee studied, among other things, the “serious problem faced by the Bureau......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Mentally Ill in Criminal Cases: the Constitutional Issue
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 16-3, September 1963
    • September 1, 1963
    ...the condi- 75 Orencia v. Overholser, 163 F.2d 763 (1947), at 765.76 Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463; Greenwood v. United States, 219 F.2d 376. 77 Weihofen, Mental Disorder, p. tions to which they pertain, and the procedures for securing those rights. In somestates the right of the insane......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT