Edwards v. Steele, 7720.
| Decision Date | 15 August 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 7720.,7720. |
| Citation | 112 F. Supp. 382 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. STEELE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
The petitioner was not represented by attorney.
Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., and Sam O. Hargus, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
Heretofore on August 5, 1952, the petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis in the filing and prosecution of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted and a Show Cause Order was issued directing the respondent to show cause on or before August 15, 1952, why such petition should not be granted. On August 12, 1952, the respondent filed his response to the Show Cause Order.
The petitioner's petition and the response to the Show Cause Order show that the petitioner was committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States on the 7th day of December, 1951, under Section 4246, Title 18, U.S.C., "until said defendant shall be mentally competent to stand trial or until pending charges against him are disposed of according to law."
The Show Cause Order reveals that some time prior to the 7th day of December, 1951, the defendant was convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and that on the 7th day of December, 1951, the court set aside the conviction on the ground that the defendant was mentally incompetent at the time of his conviction and sentence and was at that time mentally incompetent and unable to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. Pursuant to such findings and Order, the petitioner was committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States until he should become mentally competent to stand trial or until the pending charges against him were disposed of according to law.
The petitioner alleges that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty in that he has not been convicted of any offense and that he is being confined solely on the ground that he is insane. The court has heretofore passed on this question in numerous cases, the first of which was Dixon v. Steele, Warden, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 904. It is the opinion of this court, as stated in that case, that the United States courts may not commit persons who have not been convicted of any offense to confinement which which might be for their natural lives in many instances, and that the adjudication and confinement of insane persons is a state function and not the function of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pope v. United States
...States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; United States v. Marino, D.C.N.D. Illinois, 148 F.Supp. 75, 77; Edwards v. Steele, D.C.W.D.Missouri, 112 F.Supp. 382, 383; and Dixon v. Steele, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 904, 908. As pointed out in the opinion on Sauer v. United States, 9 Cir., 241......
- Durkin v. Shone
-
Greenwood v. United States, 15149.
...sovereignty of the United States from law violators." Judge Duncan, on the other hand, speaking for the same court, in Edwards v. Steele, D.C.W.D.Mo., 112 F.Supp. 382, 383, which involved the validity of the commitment under Section 4246 of an accused to the custody of the Attorney General,......
-
Kitchens v. Steele
...of the offense of which he stands accused and committed under said section. Cf. Dixon v. Steele, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 904; Edwards v. Steele, D.C., 112 F.Supp. 382. Howsoever, I understand Judge Duncan conceives Section 4246, supra, constitutional, as does the Circuit Court of Appeals for the ......