United States v. Brawner

• Decision Date: 23 June 1972
• Docket Number: No. 22714.,22714.
• Citation: United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969, 153 U.S. App. D.C. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Archie W. BRAWNER, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

471 F.2d 969 (1972)

UNITED STATES of America v.Archie W. BRAWNER, Appellant.

No. 22714.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 12, 1972.

Decided June 23, 1972.

Rehearing Denied August 21, 1972.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mr. Richard J. Flynn, Washington, D. C.(appointed by this court), with whom Mr. Richard G. Clemens, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. John D. Aldock, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and John A. Terry, Earl J. Silbert, Oscar Altshuler, Daniel J. Bernstein, Asst. U. S. Attys., and Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee.

Mr. William H. Dempsey, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by the court), as amicus curiae.

Messrs. Peter Barton Hutt, James H. Heller and Ralph J. Temple, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of The American Civil Liberties Union Fund of the National Capital Area as amicus curiae.

Messrs. Allan Ashman and John Shullenberger filed a brief on behalf of National Legal Aid and Defender Assn. as amicus curiae.

Messrs. Joseph P. Busch, Jr., Harry Wood, Eugene D. Tavris, and Arnold T. Guminski, Los Angeles, Cal., filed a brief on behalf of the National District Attorneys Assn. as amicus curiae.

Miss Marilyn Cohen, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Public Defender Service and The Georgetown Legal Intern Project as amici curiae.

Mr. Warren E. Magee, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of American Psychiatric Assn. as amicus curiae.

Professor David L. Chambers, III, filed a brief as amicus curiae.

Messrs. Bruce L. Montgomery and Michael N. Sohn, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of the American Psychological Assn., as amicus curiae.Mr. James F. Fitzpatrick, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for the American Psychological Assn.

Mr. Paul A. Lenzini, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of the Bar Assn. of the District of Columbia, as amicus curiae.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT, McGOWAN, TAMM, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, ROBB, and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

Argued En Banc April 12, 1972.

ON REHEARING EN BANC

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

The principal issues raised on this appeal from a conviction for second degree murder and carrying a dangerous weapon relate to appellant's defense of insanity.After the case was argued to a division of the court, the courtsua sponte ordered rehearing en banc.We identified our intention to reconsider the appropriate standard for the insanity defense, authorized counsel to file supplemental briefs, invited the Public Defenders' Service "to submit an additional brief on behalf of the appellant," and appointed William H. Dempsey, Jr., Esq., as amicus curiae, without instruction as to result or theory, "to research the authorities on the issue of criminal responsibility," to advise the court thereon and to present oral argument.We advised a number of organizations of our action, and invited briefs amicus curiae.Subsequently we directed the Clerk to notify all concerned of questions the court requested be discussed (Appendix A).

In the course of our reconsideration of the rule governing the insanity defense, we have studied the opinions of other courts, particularly but not exclusively the opinions of the other Federal circuits, and the views of the many scholars who have thoughtfully pondered the underlying issues.Our file includes presentations of counsel, both Government lawyers and counsel appointed to represent defendant, and submissions of those who have responded to the invitation to comment as amicus curiae on a considerable number of inter-related matters.

We have stretched our canvas wide; and the focal point of the landscape before us is the formulation of the American Law Institute.The ALI's primary provision is stated thus in its Model Penal Code, see§ 4.01(1).

Section 4.01 Mental Disease or Defect Excluding Responsibility.

(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

We have decided to adopt the ALI rule as the doctrine excluding responsibility for mental disease or defect, for application prospectively to trials begun after this date.

The interest of justice that has called us to this labor bids us set forth comments in which we review the matters we concluded were of primary consequence — though we cannot practicably retraverse all the ground covered in our reflection.These comments also contain features of the rule in which we, like other courts, have recorded our adjustments of the rule and understandings concerning its application that are stated as part of the adoption of the rule, to improve its capacity to further its underlying objectives.We highlight, as most notable of these, our decision to retain the definition of "mental illness or defect" that we evolved in our 1962McDonald¹ opinion en banc.Others are prompted by the submissions which raised, as points of objection to the ALI rule, matters that we think can be fairly taken into account by clarifying comments.For the assistance of the reader we insert at this point a Table of Contents identifying the topics discussed in this opinion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.  The Trial Record .............................. 974
                B.  Prior Developments of the Insanity
                    Defense in this Jurisdiction .................. 975
                C.  Insanity Rule in Other Circuits ............... 978
                D.  Comments Concerning Reason
                    for Adoption of ALI Rule and
                    Scope of Rule as Adopted by
                    This Court .................................... 981
                   1. Need to depart from "productivity"
                      formulation and
                      undue dominance by experts
                      .............................................. 981
                   2. Retention of McDonald definition
                      of "mental disease
                      or defect" ................................... 983
                   3. Interest of uniformity of
                      judicial approach and vocabulary
                      with room for variations
                      and adjustments .............................. 984
                   4.  Consideration and rejection
                       of other suggestions ........................ 985
                       a. Proposal to abolish insanity
                         defense ................................... 985
                      b. Proposal for defense if
                         mental disease impairs
                         capacity to such an extent
                         that defendant "cannot
                         justly be held responsible." .............. 986
                   5. ALI rule is contemplated as
                      improving the process of adjudication
                      not as affecting
                      number of insanity acquittals ................ 989
                   6. Elements of the ALI rule
                      adopted by this court ........................ 990
                      a. Intermesh of components                     991
                      b. The "result" of the mental
                         disease ................................... 991
                      c. At the time of the conduct ................ 991
                      d. Capacity to appreciate wrongfulness
                         of his conduct ............................ 991
                      e. Caveat paragraph .......................... 992
                      f. Broad presentation to the
                         jury ...................................... 994
                E.  Inter-related Doctrines and Implementing
                    Instructions ................................... 995
                     1. Suggested instruction ...................... 995
                        Burden of Proof ............................ 996
                     2. The "Lyles" instruction —
                        as to effect of verdict of not
                        guilty by reason of insanity ............... 996
                     3. Mental condition, though insufficient
                        to exonerate, may
                        be relevant to specific mental
                        element of certain crimes
                        or degrees of crime ........................ 998
                F.  Disposition of the Case ....................... 1003
                     1. Issue of Causality Testimony .............. 1003
                     2. Prosecutor's conduct ...................... 1003
                     3. Remand .................................... 1004
                G.   Supplement to Clarify Matters
                     Discussed in Separate Opinion ................ 1005
                Appendix A ........................................ 1007
                Appendix B ........................................ 1008
                

A.The Trial Record

Passing by various minor disagreements among the witnesses, the record permits us to reconstruct the events of September 8, 1967, as follows: After a morning and afternoon of wine-drinking, appellantArchie W. Brawner, Jr. and his uncle Aaron Ross, went to a party at the home of three acquaintances.During the evening, several fights broke out.In one of them, Brawner's jaw was injured when he was struck or pushed to the ground.The time of the fight was approximately 10:30 p.m.After the fight, Brawner left the party.He told Mr. Ross that some boys had jumped him.Mr. Ross testified that Brawner "looked like he was out of his mind".Other witnesses who saw him after the fight testified that Brawner's mouth was bleeding and that his speech was unclear (but the same witness added, "I heard every word he said"); that he was staggering and angry; and that he pounded on a mailbox with his fist.One witness testified that Brawner said, "I'm going to get my boys" and come back, and that "someone is going to die tonight."

Half an hour later, at about eleven p. m., Brawner was on his way back to the party with a gun.One witness testified that Brawner said he was going up there to kill his attackers or be killed.

Upon his arrival at the address, Brawner fired a shot into the ground and entered the building.He proceeded to the apartment where the party was in progress and fired five shots through the closed metal hallway door.Two of the shots struck Billy Ford, killing him.Brawner was arrested a few minutes later, several blocks away.The arresting officer testified that...