United States v. Curry
| Decision Date | 09 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 13078.,13078. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Claude Raymond CURRY, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert E. Magnuson, Charleston, W. Va. (Court-appointed counsel) McClintic, James, Wise & Robinson, Charleston, W. Va., on the brief, for appellant.
Charles M. Love, III, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Milton J. Ferguson, U. S. Atty., and W. Warren Upton, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN, WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
His commitment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244-4246, and 4247-4248 as "not mentally capable of assisting in his own defense * * * and not mentally capable of pleading to the indictment returned against him", for mailing a letter containing a threat upon the life of the President of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 871, is here attacked for the appellant Claude Raymond Curry. The sole ground is that the commitment does not limit his detention to the period while he would "probably endanger the safety of the officers, the property or other interests of the United States".
The order, passed November 29, 1968 by the Federal District Court for Southern West Virginia, placed him in the custody of the Attorney General until "mentally competent to stand trial or until the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law". Appellant's argument on the order's deficiency is that the enabling statutes must be interpreted to require this limitation in the commitment, or else they are unconstitutional as providing indefinite detainment without due process.
The cited statutes, either condensed or literatim, are these:
Appealability of the commitment is not in issue. See United States v. Klein, 325 F.2d 283 (2 Cir. 1963); Higgins v. United States, 205 F.2d 650 (9 Cir. 1953). The instant contention was never addressed to the District Court, and the finding of incompetency is not now doubted. On the record before it, no error is apparent in the Court's disposition of the case. Therefore, we affirm, but we add a remittitur for assurance of the appellant's protection.
Leave will be accorded the appellant, so long as he is under indictment, to apply to the District Court immediately and at reasonable intervals thereafter, if he be so advised, for a hearing upon and determination of whether his release would endanger the safety of persons, property or the public interest in general — not merely the interests peculiar to the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gomez v. Miller
...In his earlier opinion, to which reference is made, the convening judge pointed out that at least one federal court (United States v. Curry, 410 F.2d 1372 (4th Cir. 1969)) has held, as to the analogous federal provisions, that they would violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment......
-
U.S. v. Sahhar
...is not intended to address past wrongs, but rather to reduce the risk of future harm to persons and property. See United States v. Curry, 410 F.2d 1372, 1374 (4th Cir.1969); see also Addington, 441 U.S. at 428, 99 S.Ct. at 1810 ("[i]n a civil commitment state power is not exercised in a pun......
- United States v. Feaster
-
United States v. Comstock
...persons, property or the public interest in general—not merely the interests peculiar to the United States as such.” United States v. Curry, 410 F.2d 1372, 1374 (C.A.4 1969); see also Royal v. United States, 274 F.2d 846, 851–852 (C.A.10 1960).In 1984, Congress modified these basic statutes......
-
There Ain't No End for the 'Wicked': Implications of and Recommendations for § 4248 of the Adam Walsh Act After United States v. Comstock
...this clause to mean “release would endanger the safety of persons, property or the public interest in general.” United States v. Curry, 410 F.2d 1372, 1374 (4th Cir. 1969), quoted in Comstock , 130 S. Ct. at 1960. 71. Comstock , 130 S. Ct. at 1960 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (2006)). 72. I......