O'Beirne v. Overholser, 15634.
Decision Date | 23 November 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 15634.,15634. |
Citation | 109 US App. DC 279,287 F.2d 133 |
Parties | Herbert T. O'BEIRNE, Appellant, v. Winfred OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Samuel B. Sterrett, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
This is a habeas corpus case. Appellant seeks release from custody at St. Elizabeths Hospital, to which he was committed by the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia, after having been charged with petit larceny and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant's primary contention here is that Section 24-301 of the D.C.Code (Supp. VIII, 1960), under which he was committed, is unconstitutional. That contention must fail. See Ragsdale v. Overholser, 1960, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 308, 281 F.2d 943.
Appellant's petition for the writ also alleged that he had no "semblance of a trial," and that his confinement at the Hospital was invalid for that reason. The petition says that he was arraigned before Judge Scott of the Municipal Court on October 18, 1957, accompanied by Mr. John Saul, his retained counsel. The petition goes on to say, in part:
The District Court held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, it appeared that this was appellant's fourth habeas corpus petition. Responding to the first of these, No. 116-57, filed one month after appellant's commitment, the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the case filed an affidavit asserting that a trial had been held. This same affiant — Mr. Altshuler — appeared at the hearing on the fourth (present) petition, and summarized the contents of his affidavit (as filed in No. 116-57), as follows:
Appellant's counsel at the most recent hearing offered to call O'Beirne's original trial counsel, Mr. John Saul. The trial judge stated that such action would not be necessary, and counsel below then stated: The Government introduced the official file of the Municipal Court relative to the trial. That record consists only of docket entries as to the plea and disposition of the case and does not contain a transcript or detailed summary of the proceedings.
The District Court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
These findings and conclusions do not, in our view, meet the essential issue in the case — namely, whether O'Beirne had a fair trial, assuming that a trial did occur in the Municipal Court. The record before us does not indicate that O'Beirne has ever really had a hearing on his claim that he did not have a fair trial. Mr. Altshuler stated in the most recent hearing that each of the previous petitions had been dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. Judge Holtzoff did not allude to (nor are we aware of) any conclusions about the nature of the trial reached by the District Court on earlier petitions. And when O'Beirne's counsel sought to contradict the Government's affidavit concerning the trial, the judge refused to have Mr. Saul called as a witness. Under the circumstances, we think that he should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Boigegrain
...instead of motions under section 2255. See 3 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 591 (2d ed.1982); O'Beirne v. Overholser, 287 F.2d 133, 136 (D.C.Cir.1960); Hill v. United States, 206 F.2d 204, 207 (6th Cir.1953). If that course were open to the defendant, we would await a......
-
Bension v. Meredith
...under sentence of the Superior Court," and thus has no application in the civil commitment context.5 Cf. O'Beirne v. Overholser, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 279, 282, 287 F.2d 133, 136 (1960); Hill v. United States, 206 F.2d 204, 206 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 859, 74 S.Ct. 75, 98 L.Ed. 372 Th......
-
Cameron v. Mullen
...acts a crime. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 485-488, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895). See also O'Beirne v. Overholser, 109 U.S.App. D.C. 279, 282, 287 F.2d 133, 136 (1960). 13 Unlike sentence or probation, commitment is not punitive. See, e. g., Overholser v. Lynch, 109 U.S.App.D.......
-
Overholser v. O'Beirne
...F.2d 388, 397 note 6 (dissenting opinion), certiorari granted, 366 U.S. 958, 81 S.Ct. 1936, 6 L.Ed.2d 1252. See O'Beirne v. Overholser, 109 U.S.App. D.C. 279, 287 F.2d 133. The Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that "If the whole evidence, including that supplied by the presumption of sanity, doe......