Overholser v. De Marcos

• Citation: 80 US App. DC 91,149 F.2d 23
• Decision Date: 23 April 1945
• Docket Number: No. 8902.,8902.
• Parties: OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, v. DE MARCOS.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

80 US App. DC 91, 149 F.2d 23 (1945)

OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, v. DE MARCOS.

No. 8902.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued February 27, 1945.

Decided April 23, 1945.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 18, 1945.

Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. William E. Leahy, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Nicholas J. Chase and George A. Parker, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 18, 1945. See 65 S.Ct. 1579.

ARNOLD, Associate Justice.

The respondent, Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital, appeals from an order in a habeas corpus proceeding discharging the petitioner from custody on the ground that petitioner is sane. In his answer respondent states that petitioner has been under the care and observation of physicians on the staff of St. Elizabeths Hospital, to which he was committed in accordance with law, that he is suffering from paranoia to such an extent as to be dangerous to himself and others if released.

At the hearing both the United States Attorney and the court below assumed that the court's function was to weigh the evidence on the sanity of petitioner in order to determine whether he should be unconditionally released and discharged into the community. Since the hearing below, this court, in the case of Dorsey v. Gill, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 148 F.2d 857, has reviewed and restated the principles governing habeas corpus in the District of Columbia, considering them in the light of the growing volume of this type of litigation. In that case we said that it is not the function of the judge in habeas corpus proceedings to determine the mental condition of a person who has been committed for insanity. The purpose of such proceedings is rather to determine whether substantial doubt of insanity exists which requires an order reopening the proceedings under which the petitioner was originally committed to the hospital. In no case should a judge in habeas corpus proceedings order the unconditional release of a person committed for insanity.

The reason for this is that the release of an inmate of a mental institution does not depend upon legal standards of responsibility for crime or capacity to make a contract, which a court is qualified to apply. Where, as in this case, the petitioner was duly committed, the issue which must ultimately be decided is whether he has sufficiently recovered from a mental disease so that he may be safely released. Lay judgment on such an issue is of little value. If, despite the judgment of the hospital staff that the petitioner has not recovered, there is a substantial doubt on this question it becomes the duty of the court to see that a new judgment on petitioner's sanity is made according to the procedure laid down in the District of Columbia Code. This procedure requires an examination and report by the Commission on Mental Health.

The only question before the court in the present case was whether the evidence raised a doubt as to the validity of the judgment of the hospital staff sufficient to require the reopening of commitment proceedings. In weighing the evidence on this issue it should be remembered that persons legally committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital are presumed to be insane. That presumption goes beyond the familiar principle that a condition of insanity once found is presumed to continue. There is also a presumption that the staff of St. Elizabeths Hospital are competent and that their opinion, based on observation and treatment, is correct.¹ Their determination that a petitioner should not be at large because of mental disease, while not an administrative finding of fact, nevertheless must not be lightly disregarded. Such a practice would lead to constant interference with the management of the hospital on habeas corpus proceedings and cast an intolerable burden on the Commission on Mental Health.

We are aware of the possibility that the judgment of the hospital staff may be wrong. We also recognize that it is difficult for an indigent inmate to procure expert psychiatric testimony which will contradict the opinion of the staff. For that reason, in the case of DeMarcos v. Overholser² (involving this same petitioner), we suggested that an inmate of St. Elizabeths Hospital petitioning for habeas corpus might demand the expert testimony of members of the Commission on Mental Health, or that the court on its own motion might require it. This gives any inmate of St. Elizabeths the protection of a diagnosis by independent experts. But where members of the Commission on Mental Health and the hospital staff both testify petitioner is insane there can seldom be any reason for reopening the commitment proceedings.

The case before us illustrates the danger of ignoring the opinion of these two bodies of experts. Two members of the Commission on Mental Health were called who supported the finding of insanity made by members of the hospital staff. The evidence adduced by the petitioner consisted in (1) the testimony of lay witnesses without knowledge of mental disease, and (2) the testimony of a practicing psychiatrist. The lay attendants stated that petitioner's conduct in the hospital was orderly. However, since orderly conduct in mental institutions is the rule and not the exception it cannot, standing alone, be treated as evidence that an inmate should be released. The psychiatrist who testified that petitioner was sane based his opinion on an examination of less than two hours. He did not examine the case history of the petitioner for the astonishing reason that he preferred not to be influenced by the "voluminous amount of material that would take a long time to go through". He said that such records "can act to the disadvantage in that it distorts your original viewpoint".

Nothing in the record raises sufficient doubt as to petitioner's insanity to justify reopening of commitment proceedings.³ In view of the large number of petitions for habeas corpus from St. Elizabeths Hospital it would cast an intolerable burden on the courts and the Commission on Mental Health, as well as the hospital, to reopen commitment proceedings on such an insubstantial showing.

Because of the frequency of petitions for habeas corpus from St. Elizabeths Hospital we think we should add a word about the conduct of the hearing in this case. Among the witnesses subpoenaed by petitioner were the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital, both of whom asked to be excused on the ground that they had no personal knowledge of the case and that their duties at the hospital were heavy. Acting on the theory that it had no discretion in the matter the court compelled both witnesses to attend. This was error. Any witness, improvidently called, may make a showing that he has no relevant information on which he can testify and that his attendance at the trial would be a waste of time. On such a showing the court should require a statement from the party who subpoenaed the witness setting out the evidence he expects to obtain. If it appears that the witness can give no relevant testimony the court should not require his attendance. In exercising this discretionary power the court should resolve doubts in favor of the party calling the witness. But failure to inquire into the matter, where a showing is made that a person subpoenaed has no relevant testimony to give, is an abuse of discretion. Any other rule would permit an insane petitioner needlessly to waste the time of the court and the persons whom he subpoenas.

During the hearing the petitioner was represented by counsel. Nevertheless the court permitted petitioner to conduct the trial while his counsel sat silent. This is an undesirable practice. Where a party is represented by competent counsel his case should be conducted by that counsel unless it becomes apparent that the interests of justice require the party's active participation pro se. Such circumstances are rare and were not present in this case. The court apparently thought that the interests of justice required it to permit petitioner to examine witnesses because of the opportunity it gave for observation of petitioner during the trial with respect to his sanity. But it is better practice for the court to make that kind of observation by questioning the patient himself. In hearing petitions for habeas corpus brought by persons committed for insanity it should not be forgotten that they are presumed to be insane. When inmates of a mental hospital are permitted to question the members of the staff who are confining them it is difficult to keep such examination under control. This is illustrated by a typical excerpt from petitioner's examination of the Assistant Superintendent of the Hospital:

"Q. Now, do you know of any reason why those under you in rank and official position should on May 9, 1944, take from me two pairs of eye glasses issued to me by the Government of the United States, which I carried since May, 1939? Do you know of any reason why they should be taken from me? A. I know nothing about it.

"Q. Are you aware they were taken from me? A. No.

"Q. That will come out. I will ask you if stamps are money? Are postage stamps money?

"Mr. Burke. I object to that question.

"A. I don't know.

"Mr. DeMarcos. Your Honor, I have a reason for that. If I don't develop it, I will ask your Honor to...