United States v. Marino
| Decision Date | 24 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 56 CR 572.,56 CR 572. |
| Citation | 148 F. Supp. 75 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Anthony Joseph MARINO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
R. Tieken, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
George Q. St. George, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
An indictment was returned against this defendant on September 28, 1956. Two days later, on October 1, on motion of the United States Attorney, an order was entered stating that there was reasonable grounds to suppose that defendant was not competent to stand trial, and that he should present himself to a named psychiatrist for examination on October 10, 1956, all as authorized by Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244.
That section provides that at any time after arrest and prior to sentence, on the motion of the United States Attorney that there is reason to believe that the defendant "charged with an offense against the United States" may not be mentally competent to assist in his own defense, the court shall order a psychiatric examination; and that "If the report of the psychiatrist indicates * * * such mental incompetency in the accused, the court shall hold a hearing * * * at which evidence as to the mental condition of the accused may be submitted". In the case at bar the psychiatrist conducted an examination and reported to the court, using the technical and (to the legal mind) esoteric language of his profession. In fact, so cryptic was the report that counsel were unable to agree on whether or not it "indicates a state of mental incompetency". Defendant says that it does not so indicate and accordingly no further hearing is warranted; the government contends the reverse; and the court agreed that the parties had reason to differ on the question.
While court and counsel considered this situation, two further motions were made. On December 18, 1956, defendant moved to vacate the order of October 1, 1956, and counsel for defendant stated orally that he felt the court had no jurisdiction to enter it. The order was not vacated since it had already been executed, but defendant was given permission to file briefs stating his objections. Then on January 2, 1957, the government filed a motion asking for an early hearing on defendant's competency to stand trial. Briefs have been filed on all questions.
Defendant contends that the court has no authority to proceed further (and had none in the beginning) under section 4244 for the reason that the indictment fails to state an offense against the United States. If this be true, the power of the court to act must certainly fall. The power under which a hearing may be held and a commitment made is "the power to prosecute for federal offenses." Greenwood v. United States, 1955, 350 U.S. 366, 375, 76 S.Ct. 410, 415. If there is no federal offense there is no power. Any other holding would transform section 4244 into a vehicle by which the federal government could assume the care and responsibility for the mentally ill — a result surely not contemplated by Congress.
An examination of the indictment to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. United States
...killing him. The court found these words to lack any "expression of determination or intent to do the act itself." In United States v. Marino, 148 F.Supp. 75 (N.D.Ill.1957), an indictment was dismissed which charged that the accused had posted signs reading: "There can be slain no sacrifice......
-
U.S. v. Hoffman, 85-2252
...indictments premised on such innocuous expressions as predictions or even on strong statements of desire. See, e.g., United States v. Marino, 148 F.Supp. 75 (N.D.Ill.1957) ("There can be slain no sacrifice to God more acceptable than an unjust President" and "The officials who aught to be a......
-
United States v. Stock
...F.3d 1072, 1084 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Guerrero, No. IP 03-122-CR, 2003 WL 23220736 *5 (S.D. Ind. 2003); United States v. Marino, 148 F.Supp. 75, 77 (D. Ill. 1957); United States v. Daulong, 60 F.Supp. 235, 236 (W.D. La. 1945); United States v. Metzdorf, 252 F. 933, 938 (D. Mont.......
-
Pope v. United States
...v. United States, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 650; Greenwood v. United States, 350 U.S. 366, 76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412; United States v. Marino, D.C.N.D. Illinois, 148 F.Supp. 75, 77; Edwards v. Steele, D.C.W.D.Missouri, 112 F.Supp. 382, 383; and Dixon v. Steele, D.C., 104 F.Supp. 904, 908. As point......