Wells v. United States

• Decision Date: 08 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 12901.,12901.
• Citation: 239 F.2d 931,99 US App. DC 310
• Parties: Robert Lee WELLS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

99 US App. DC 310, 239 F.2d 931 (1956)

Robert Lee WELLS, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 12901.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 6, 1956.

Decided November 8, 1956.

Mr. John A. Shorter, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Perry W. Howard, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., at the time brief was filed, William S. McKinley, E. Riley Casey and E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON, FAHY, WASHINGTON, DANAHER, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried and convicted for rape in January 1952 without any question being raised as to his mental competency to stand trial or as to his sanity at the time of the offense.Two weeks later, when appellant appeared for sentencing, the judge expressed doubt of his competency and ordered a psychiatric examination.The psychiatrists found him to be suffering from "undifferentiated psychosis with schizophrenic and psychopathic tendencies."Ultimately a hearing was held at which the psychiatrists testified and a judicial determination was made that appellant was "presently insane."He was thereupon committed to St. Elizabeth's Hospital.This was in May, more than three months after the trial.No judicial determination was made as to whether appellant was competent in January, when he was tried, nor does it appear that the psychiatrists made any investigation of his January mental state.¹

In June 1955, after three years of hospital treatment, he was judicially determined to be competent to stand trial.Instead of being tried again, however, he was brought up for sentence on the 1952 verdict.At that time, his counsel orally moved for a new trial upon the ground that there was doubt as to appellant's mental competency at the time of his trial and that there had been no judicial determination that he had then been competent.This appeal is from the denial of that motion.

Sections 4244 et seq., of Title 18 U.S.C., embody "a comprehensive scheme, enacted in 1949, to provide for the care and custody of insane persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States."²

We are of the view that the purpose of Congress and the attainment of the spirit of that purpose can best be served if, in this case,...