Hereden v. United States, 6571.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 6571.,6571. |
| Citation | 286 F.2d 526 |
| Parties | Ezra Lee HEREDEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Stanley J. Myers, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
John M. Amick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Paul W. Cress, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HUXMAN, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
The defendant, Hereden, was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma for violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314. Prior to arraignment, Hereden, through his attorney, moved for a mental examination as provided for in Title 18 U.S.C. A. § 4244, alleging that he had been previously adjudged insane and committed to the Eastern State Hospital at Vinita, Oklahoma. The motion was granted, and Hereden was committed to the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri for mental examination. The Medical Center reported to the District Judge that its psychiatric staff was of the opinion that the defendant was able to properly assist in his defense and was competent to stand trial. Thereafter Hereden appeared in open court with his counsel, pleaded not guilty, and was tried and convicted of the offense charged.
The purpose of Section 4244, while specifically preserving the defense of insanity at trial, is to provide a procedure in federal courts for judicially determining mental competency prior to trial. Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; Krupnick v. United States, 8 Cir., 264 F. 2d 213. When the defendant in a criminal case has been examined by a qualified psychiatrist as provided for in this Section, and the report indicates a state of present insanity or mental incompetency, the court shall hold a hearing, after due notice, to determine the mental competency of the accused. After the hearing, the court may find that the accused is mentally competent to stand trial,1 but the finding "shall in no way prejudice the accused in a plea of insanity as a defense to the crime charged * * *." When the report does not indicate a state of present insanity or mental incompetency, no further action by the trial court on the question of insanity is necessary prior to trial.
Hereden's argument here is that the allegation of a former adjudication of insanity in a state court had the same effect as a report from a court-appointed psychiatrist that the accused was mentally incompetent to stand trial, which necessitated a judicial determination of his present sanity. There is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ives
...912, 13 L.Ed.2d 803 (1965).24 See, e.g., Amador Beltran v. United States, 302 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1962).25 See, e.g., Hereden v. United States, 286 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1961) (distinguishing both Gunther and Contee). We distinguished Gunther in Formhals v. United States, 278 F.2d 43, 48 (9th C......
-
Floyd v. United States
...as Caster v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 850, cert. den., 1964, 376 U.S. 953, 84 S.Ct. 972, 11 L.Ed.2d 973, Hereden v. United States, 10 Cir., 1961, 286 F.2d 526, and Coffman v. United States, 10 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 212, for the proposition that prior to trial of the criminal cas......
-
U.S. v. Goodman, 78-1304
...380 U.S. 918, 85 S.Ct. 912, 13 L.Ed.2d 803 (1965); Amador Beltran v. United States, 302 F.2d 48, 50 (1st Cir. 1962); Hereden v. United States, 286 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1961); D.C.Code § 24-301(b). In United States v. Ives, supra, the defendant was initially found incompetent and was referred......
-
Hall v. United States
...(1897), and we reject Hall's contention that repeated psychological examinations are required by the statute. See Hereden v. United States, 286 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1961). Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, we think the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 4244 inapplicable. It is an unspoken p......