United States v. Hiss
| Decision Date | 04 January 1950 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HISS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty., New York City, Thomas F. Murphy, Clarke S. Ryan, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, and Thomas J. Donegan, Special Assistant to the U. S. Atty., New York City, for Government.
Debevoise, Plimpton & McLean, New York City, Claude B. Cross, Boston, Mass., (Edward C. McLean, New York City, Harold Rosenwald, Washington, D. C., Robert Von Mehren, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Memorandum in respect to the admission of psychiatric testimony to impeach the credibility of the Government witness, Whittaker Chambers.
It is apparent that the outcome of this trial is dependent to a great extent upon the testimony of one man — Whittaker Chambers. Mr. Chambers' credibility is one of the major issues upon which the jury must pass. The opinion of the jury — formed upon their evaluation of all the evidence laid before them — is the decisive authority on this question as on all questions of fact.
The existence of insanity or mental derangement is admissible for the purpose of discrediting a witness. Evidence of insanity is not merely for the judge on the preliminary question of competency, but goes to the jury to affect credibility. District of Columbia v. Armes, 107 U.S. 519, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618; Coffin v. Reichard, 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 278, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 887, 65 S.Ct. 1568, 89 L.Ed. 2001; United States v. Pugliese, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 497.
Since the use of psychiatric testimony to impeach the credibility of a witness is a comparatively modern innovation, there appears to be no federal cases dealing with this precise question. However, the importance of insanity on the question of credibility of witnesses is often stressed. There are some State cases in which such testimony has been held to be admissible or which indicate that if this question had been presented, it would have been admissible. People v. Cowles, 1929, 246 Mich. 429, 224 N.W. 387; see also State v. Wesler, 1948, 1 N.J. 58, 61 A.2d 746; Ellarson v. Ellarson, 1921, 198 App.Div. 103, 107, 190 N.Y.S. 6; Jeffers v. State, 145 Ga. 74, 88 S.E. 571; Bouldin v. State, 1920, 87 Tex. Cr.R. 419, 222 S.W. 555; 15 A.L.R. 932.
Expert testimony of this character was excluded in State v. Driver, 1921, 88 W.Va. 479, 107 S.E. 189, 15 A.L.R. 917. The Court's reasoning seemed to be based upon the theory that the witness was to be regarded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County
...the introduction of psychiatric testimony as to the credibility of a witness, especially in criminal sex cases. (See United States v. Hiss (1950) D.C., 88 F.Supp. 559; United States v. Rosenberg (1952) D.C., 108 F.Supp. 798, 806; State v. Sinnott (1955) 24 N.J. 408, 132 A.2d 298, 306; Tabor......
-
Stebbing v. State
...which a psychiatric expert might be permitted to express an opinion on credibility of a specific witness, see, e.g., United States v. Hiss, 88 F.Supp. 559 (S.D.N.Y.1950), aff'd, 185 F.2d 822 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 948, 71 S.Ct. 532, 95 L.Ed. 683 (1951), an expert is not permitted......
-
United States v. Gilboy, Crim. No. 12880.
...at page 565; United States ex rel. Elliott v. Hendricks, 3 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 922, at page 931 et seq., and cf. United States v. Hiss, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1950, 88 F.Supp. 559. 27 "One of the subtlest tendencies which a conscientious judge must learn to overcome is that of `leaning over backward......
-
State v. Butler
...(Sup.Ct.1879); State v. Cade, 215 N.C. 393, 2 S.E.2d 7 (Sup.Ct.1939); State v. Moorison, supra, 259 P.2d at page 1112; United States v. Hiss, 88 F.Supp. 559 (D.C.N.Y.1950). In the present case it is true that defendants did not object to Coleman taking the witness stand at the trial, nor di......