In re Harmon, Misc. No. 377.
| Citation | 425 F.2d 916 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 377. |
| Parties | In re Herbert Preston HARMON, Petitioner. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Herbert Preston Harmon, pro se.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Harmon, now undergoing psychiatric observation at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246, has asked us to vacate the order of the district court committing him to the custody of the Attorney General and to remand for a trial on the offense charged. The record indicates that a complaint was lodged against defendant in June, 1968, in the District of Puerto Rico for transporting a stolen aircraft across international borders, but was subsequently dismissed when examination raised doubts about defendant's mental ability to stand trial. The government later renewed the complaint and the defendant was sent to the Medical Center, which eventually discharged him as improved. The district court then arranged for further mental examinations, and, after a hearing, concluded that defendant was still not competent to stand trial. The court therefore returned defendant to the Medical Center for further treatment.
Whatever may be defendant's right to appeal from an order under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 or § 4246, see United States v. Davis, 365 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1966), defendant failed to file notice with the district court within the time prescribed by Rule 4(b), Fed.R.App. Proc. We therefore treat defendant's papers as a request for permission to file a petition for mandamus. However, we must deny this request. The determination of the district court concerning competency to stand trial should not be set aside unless clearly arbitrary. Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 658 (4th Cir.1969); see United States v. Knohl, 379 F.2d 427, 434 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L. Ed.2d 465 (1967). While the accused in this case seems to have "a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him," there was evidence calling into doubt his ability to "consult with his lawyer with a reasonable understanding * * * of the proceedings" under the stress of a trial. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960).
Nevertheless we are disturbed by the defendant's lengthy confinement, now approaching a year, without the safeguards of a trial on the offense charged, or formal commitment proceedings addressed to defendant's ability to function in society. Such confinement not only erodes the values protected by the right to a speedy trial, but also seems to be of questionable clinical value. See A. Rosenberg, Competency for Trial, 53...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norwood v. State
...situations like those cited by the defendant in United States v. Calloway (1974), 164 U.S.App.D.C. 204, 505 F.2d 311, and In re Harmon (1st Cir. 1970), 425 F.2d 916. In those cases, the evaluation itself was unduly delayed--In Calloway, for three months, and in Harmon, for one year. Here th......
-
Brace v. O'Neill
...whole as the two lawsuits do not ask for identical relief.11 See, e. g., Dellinger v. Mitchell, supra, 442 F.2d at 789-90; In re Harmon, 425 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1970); International Products Corp. v. Lyons, 325 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1963); Leesona Corp v. Control Manuf. Corp., 308 F.2d 895 (4th ......
-
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation
...responded in divergent ways to requests from a party to convert a notice of appeal into a petition for mandamus. See, e.g., In re Harmon, 425 F.2d 916 (CA1 1970) (treating a notice of appeal as a request for permission to file a petition for mandamus); Wilkins v. Erickson, 484 F.2d 969 (CA8......
-
Grand Jury Subpoenas, In re
...States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 808 (5th Cir. 1975); Application of Johnson, 484 F.2d 791, 794 n.2 (7th Cir. 1973); In re Harmon, 425 F.2d 916, 918 (1st Cir. 1970); International Prods. Corp. v. Koons, 325 F.2d 403, 407 (2d Cir. 1963); International Nickel Co. v. Martin J. Barry, Inc., 204 ......