Dixon v. Steele, 6900

• Citation: 104 F. Supp. 904
• Decision Date: 06 May 1952
• Docket Number: No. 6900,7481.,6900
• Parties: DIXON v. STEELE, Warden.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

104 F. Supp. 904

DIXON v. STEELE, Warden.

Nos. 6900, 7481.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

June 28, 1951.

On Second Petition May 6, 1952.

Sam M. Wear, Dist. Atty., Harry F. Murphy, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for United States.

Charles M. Wantuck, Springfield, Mo., for defendant Charles A. Dixon.

DUNCAN, District Judge.

This is the second petition for writ of habeas corpus this petitioner has filed. The petitioner charges that:

"* * * he is unjustly and unlawfully detained and imprisoned by color of authority of the United States in the custody of Ivan W. Steele, Warden, at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri"

under a commitment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under the authority of § 4246, Title 18 U.S.C.A. He alleges that said section is unconstitutional and that his retention thereunder is in violation of his constitutional rights. The petition was granted, and the matter came on for hearing on April 24, 1952 in the Southern Division of the Western District of Missouri, at Springfield. Evidence was heard and the cause taken under consideration.

The petitioner was represented by able counsel, who prepared the application. The first petition (No. 6900) was filed on May 1, 1951, by the petitioner himself, or at least it was so indicated. In substance he made the same allegations as the present application.

Upon a full and complete hearing of that application (No. 6900) the court found that the petitioner was insane and incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong at that time; that the evidence tended to show that the applicant was insane at the time he committed the offense for which he was being detained, and remanded the case to the District Court by which he was committed, for further proceedings in connection therewith.

The reasons for the court's action were more fully expressed in a memorandum opinion filed June 28, 1951 which was introduced in evidence in this case (and in so far as applicable, adopted as a part of this opinion); along with all other documents and records in case No. 6900 and made a part of the record in this case.

Copy of the record entry¹ of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, made a part of Respondent's answer filed in this court on April 24, 1952 shows that on September 10, 1951 the United States District Court for the State of Kansas specially set the case of "United States of America v. Charles A. Dixon" then pending in that court for hearing on September 15, 1951; that the United States was represented by the Assistant District Attorney, and the defendant appeared in person and by his employed counsel; all of the parties announced ready for trial, and the order further shows that:

"* * * a question exists relative to defendant's present mental condition, this hearing proceeds with reference to defendant's present mental condition, * * *".

Following that hearing, at which the defendant introduced no evidence, the court found that at said time (September 15, 1951) that the defendant:

"* * * is so mentally incompetent that he cannot cooperate with his counsel in the trail of the above action. That he cannot distinguish now between right and wrong. That he does not now fully understand the nature of the charges and proceedings pending against him and that by reason thereof, he should be committed to the custody of the Attorney General, or his authorized representative pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, U.S.C.A. § 4246, until he shall become mentally competent to stand trial or until the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law.

"The court further finds that the defendant's contention that he was insane at the time the offense or offenses were committed by him as related in said indictment is an affirmative defense, and the Court concludes as a matter of law that such defense only can be determined upon a trial of the above action and that this Court has no authority under the law to determine at this time the question of defendant's sanity at the time he was alleged to have committed the offense."

Pursuant to such finding the defendant was again:

"* * * committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for confinement and care until the sanity or mental competency of said defendant shall be restored and said defendant shall become mentally competent to stand trial in the above-entitled action or until the above-entitled action now pending against him is disposed of according to law."

The evidence in the hearing on this application shows that the applicant's mental condition has not improved during the past year, and that it is unlikely that his mental condition will improve in the future. There seems to be no question in the minds of the psychiatrists who have examined him, that his condition is permanent, and that he never will be able to advise with counsel or to clearly appreciate and understand the difference between right and wrong.

It has now been three and one-half years since he was first indicted. It is very obvious from the undisputed record that he has been insane at least since the time of his first arraignment, with no evidence of improvement. If the applicant was insane at the time he committed the offenses, as I have stated in the first Memorandum Opinion, he was incapable of violating the law, and is guilty of no offense.

If § 4246, Title 18 U.S.C.A., is valid, then an insane person charged with a criminal offense can be imprisoned for the rest of his life without any trial as to the issue of whether or not he committed an offense, but only as to the question of whether or not he was sane or insane at the time of the hearing.

In this case it seems clear that there is no dispute as to the question of applicant's insanity, and little dispute as to the fact that it will continue so long as the man shall live. For that, he is confined without term in Federal custody — confinement not for a crime, but for insanity.

This question was fully discussed in the Memorandum Opinion in the first case, filed on June 28, 1951. There is no question about the right of the Congress to restrain insane persons in those jurisdictions over which it retains complete legislative authority, such as the District of Columbia and the Territories, and over such groups as it exercises exclusive legislative authority, but it is difficult for me to conceive of Federal constitutional authority to invade the rights of the states in the confinement of its citizens on the ground of insanity.

Suggestion has been made that in view of the fact that the party is being held in custody for the violation of a Federal law, such custody may continue until the case is disposed of, although the accused person may be hopelessly insane. With that view I cannot agree.

It is my conclusion that the right to confine persons for insanity is reserved to the states, and that the statute, in so far as it attempts, if it does, to confer upon a court the right to commit an accused person to the United States authorities for imprisonment for an uncertain, indefinite time pending restoration to his sanity or until the charge against him is otherwise disposed of, is outside the constitutional authority of the Congress, and that the applicant in this case is being illegally restrained of his liberty, and is entitled to be released.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the application for the writ of habeas corpus be and it is hereby granted, and the respondent is ordered to release the applicant from further custody.

Memorandum Opinion Filed June 28, 1951.

This matter is before the court on petitioner's "Petition for writ of habeas corpus." He is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri. He prepared his own petition, and, typical of such petitions, it is lacking in formality. In passing upon such petitions, the court must look to the substance rather than to the form, and often read into the petition that which the petitioner intended to say. So it is with this petition.

Briefly, he alleges that he is confined in the Medical Center under §§ 4244-4246,¹ Title 18 U.S.C.A., to be confined "until cured of his insanity * * * or until the indictment was disposed of according to law * * *".

He further alleges that he "has now sufficiently recovered his sanity to know the difference between right and wrong and to be able to conduct himself in perfect decorum under all laws and he is now able to consult with counsel and assist in his own defense."

He asks: "(1) that he be returned to the trial court for trial upon the indictment; or (2) that as he was incompetent at the time of crime, the indictment be dismissed and he be released; or (3) that he may be permitted, because of his physical disability (caused by war service for which he receives a Government pension of $111.00 per month) to obtain hospitalization and care and treatment in a private institution at his own expense within his own home town or state should this court find that any additional treatment be required." The facts are not in dispute.

The petitioner, 50 years of age, a veteran of World War I, is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, under a commitment issued by the District Court for the State of Kansas, under Section 4244, Title 18 U.S.C.A.

On May 4, 1951 this court heard evidence offered by petitioner and respondent in the United States District Court for the Southern Division of the Western District of Missouri at Springfield. After hearing the evidence, the court took the matter under advisement.

Subsequent to the hearing, an attorney was appointed for the petitioner, and he has favored the court with a brief. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court dictated into the record, findings of fact and...