Overholser v. Williams, 14297.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1958
• Docket Number: No. 14297.,14297.
• Citation: 102 US App. DC 248,252 F.2d 629
• Parties: Winfred OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, Appellant, v. Dallas O. WILLIAMS, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

102 US App. DC 248, 252 F.2d 629 (1958)

Winfred OVERHOLSER, Superintendent, St. Elizabeths Hospital, Appellant, v. Dallas O. WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 14297.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted January 15, 1958.

Decided January 21, 1958.

Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Edward P. Troxell, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., was on the brief, for appellant.

Messrs. Nestor S. Foley and George Rublee, II, for appellee.

Before BAZELON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order by District Judge Keech releasing appellee Williams from the custody of the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital, on habeas corpus. The facts and circumstances are set forth in Judge Keech's memorandum opinion filed January 15, 1958, D. C., 157 F.Supp. 871.

In reversing Williams' conviction of assault with a deadly weapon and directing dismissal of the indictment, we indicated that it was open to the Government to proceed for a civil commitment under D. C.Code § 21-326. Williams v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 250 F.2d 19. That section permits a commitment proceeding to be begun by arrest of the alleged insane person.¹ The arrested person is to be detained in the District of Columbia General Hospital and, within forty-eight hours, a verified petition is to be filed as provided in D.C.Code §§ 21-310, 21-311.

The petition filed by the Government in this case, no matter how liberally construed, does not comply with the code provisions. For example, it completely fails to allege, as D.C.Code § 21-310 requires, that Williams is "insane." Nor is any allegation made that he is "of unsound mind," an alternative term used in §§ 21-311 and 21-326. Though the terms "insane" and "of unsound mind" may have one meaning for the speaker and another for the hearer, the statute nevertheless makes verified allegations of that sort a jurisdictional prerequisite to the institution of lunacy proceedings.² This defect in the petition is not remedied by the two psychiatric reports attached to the petition. Both are unverified and are ambiguous in the terms employed and the conclusions reached.³

The Government relies on Overholser v. de Marcos, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 147 F.2d 145, and Barry v. Hall, 1938, 68 App.D.C. 350, 98 F.2d 222, as authority in support of its position. But those cases simply indicate that where a strong showing of present insanity is made a court may be justified, in spite of defective prior proceedings, in ordering a temporary detention conditioned upon prompt institution of proper proceedings. See also Dooling v. Overholser, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 243 F.2d 825. Compare Jillson v. Caprio, 1950, 86 U.S. App.D.C. 168, 181 F.2d 523. In the present case the Government fails to allege insanity or to file the requisite affidavits to that effect.

We must affirm Judge Keech's order directing appellee's release. Our affirmance is without prejudice to such additional proceedings, in compliance with the provisions of the District of Columbia Code, as may be instituted.

1 The text of the section is as follows:

Any member of the...