In re Williams
Decision Date | 14 January 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 6-58.,6-58. |
Citation | 157 F. Supp. 871 |
Parties | In the Matter of Dallas O. WILLIAMS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Edward P. Troxell, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
George Rublee, II, Nestor S. Foley, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
This matter is before the court on a writ of habeas corpus seeking the discharge of the petitioner, Dallas O. Williams, from the custody of the Superintendent of Saint Elizabeths Hospital, to which he was committed by order of this Court in Mental Health No. 34-58, "pending the outcome of proceedings to be forthwith instituted by the Mental Health Commission."
At the time of the signing of the order of commitment, the petitioner was before the court for presentation of the certified copy of the judgment and opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reversing his conviction in Criminal No. 1572-49 for lack of due process. Williams v. United States, D.C.Cir., 250 F.2d 19. The government requested that the court, before receiving the mandate of the Court of Appeals in the criminal case, consider the petition of the United States Attorney, on behalf of the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Jail, that the Mental Health Commission examine Williams and report its findings to the Court.
The petition, sworn to by the United States Attorney, recited:
The petition then prayed that the Commission on Mental Health be directed to examine petitioner and report its findings to the Court and that he be committed to Saint Elizabeths Hospital pending determination of the need for his continued confinement in a mental institution. Attached to the petition were the unsworn statements of Doctors Cody and Platkin, two psychiatrists who had examined the petitioner on December 28, 1957, at the jail.1
The court granted this petition for commitment, "sitting as a court of equity." The order did not provide any definite term of temporary commitment. Thereafter a supplemental order was signed by the court, directing the Mental Health Commission to include certain specific findings in its report.2
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus followed. Issuance of the writ was granted, and a full hearing has now been had before this court upon the return to the writ. The sole issue in this proceeding is whether the petitioner is lawfully restrained by the respondent. At the outset, it should be pointed out that, inasmuch as there is no criminal charge now pending against petitioner, there is no contention that any provision of the criminal code authorized his commitment. The legality of his confinement must therefore be tested solely upon the civil authority of this Court.
The respondent relies upon §§ 21-301 and 21-326 of the District of Columbia Code and the concluding suggestion of the Court of Appeals in its opinion reversing petitioner's criminal conviction.
Section 21-301 does not purport to provide any procedure for the commitment of insane persons. It merely deals with the court's power to superintend and direct the affairs of persons who have been adjudged non compos mentis, providing for appointment of committees or trustees for the management and preservation of insane persons' estates.3
Section 21-326, captioned "Apprehension and detention by police, without warrant, of insane persons found in public places," deals with just that subject.4 Although it provides an emergency procedure for apprehension of persons thought to be insane, which should not be defeated by an over-technical construction,5 it does require that the arresting officer reasonably believe the person apprehended to be insane and incapable of managing his own affairs or a menace to the public peace, and authorizes only the initial arrest and detention.
The two sections of the Code which prescribe the basic procedure for preliminary commitment of insane persons are §§ 21-310 and 21-311.
Section 21-310 provides in part:6
This section further provides:
* * *"(Emphasis supplied.)
Under no statute is the court authorized to commit any person for mental examination on a petition which fails to state facts upon which an allegation of present insanity is based.
If it be considered that the Superintendent of the Jail was a "person with whom the alleged insane person may reside, or at whose house he may be," within the terms of § 21-310, obviously the statements attached to his petition did not fulfill the requirements of § 21-311, hence furnished no basis for the order of commitment. Aside from the fact that the psychiatrists' statements were unsworn, they contained no allegation of present insanity. Although both doctors indicated that they anticipated further antisocial behavior by the petitioner upon his release to society and believed him to be a potential...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Alexander
...question not reached by the court may very well be reached and decided, sub rosa, by the prison authorities.) 116 See, e. g., In re Williams, 157 F.Supp. 871, 876 aff'd sub nom. Overholser v. Williams, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 252 F.2d 629 (1958) ("The courts have no legal basis for ordering c......
-
In re Ballay
...seems to be that a person adjudged to be insane is presumed to so continue until it is shown that sanity has returned"); In re Williams, 157 F.Supp. 871 (D.D.C.1958), aff'd, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 252 F.2d 629 (1958); Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. Herrmann, 35 A.2d 828 (D.C.Mun.Ct. App.1944);......
-
Torsney, Matter of
...sentence similarly be required to demonstrate that he or she is not dangerous before his release into the community. (See Matter of Williams, D.C., 157 F.Supp. 871, 876, aff'd Sub nom. Overholser v. Williams, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 252 F.2d 629.) Whatever its label, confinement on a showing ......
-
Williams v. United States
...existence of mental disease, and appellant promptly obtained his release from St. Elizabeths Hospital on habeas corpus. In re Williams, D.D. C., 157 F.Supp. 871 (1958). This court affirmed the order of discharge "without prejudice to * * * additional proceedings." Overholser v. Williams, 10......