Wider v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. 18022.,18022.
• Citation: 121 US App. DC 129,348 F.2d 358
• Parties: Booker T. WIDER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

121 US App. DC 129, 348 F.2d 358 (1965)

Booker T. WIDER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18022.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued September 16, 1964.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Mr. James J. Bierbower, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. Gerald E. Gilbert, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial in the District Court, appellant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and of carrying a concealed weapon. He received concurrent sentences of 2 to 6 years and one year, respectively. On this appeal, appellant urges that the court erred in finding him competent to stand trial.

On defense counsel's motion prior to the trial, appellant was hospitalized for mental examination pursuant to D.C. CODE § 24-301(a). The resulting hospital report stated that in the opinion of the hospital staff appellant was competent to stand trial, that he was suffering from a mental disease at the time of the examination and at the time of the crime, and that the psychiatrists were unable to render an opinion as to whether or not the crime was a product of the mental disease.

It appears that, notwithstanding the hospital report, defense counsel entertained serious doubts that appellant was competent; and it further appears that both counsel were of the opinion that appellant had an absolute right to waive the insanity defense and keep the issue of insanity out of the case altogether. Because of its importance to our decision, we reproduce here in full a colloquy which occurred during a bench conference at the commencement of the trial:

"Defense Counsel: Your Honor, this case has given me a considerable amount of concern. I made a motion for a mental examination for this defendant and that motion was granted. The defendant was sent to Saint Elizabeths for a ninety-day mental examination. They sent a report, the hospital sent a report to the court and I received a copy of it, stating that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease at the time of the commission of the crime but there was no opinion on the productivity. There is no defense in this case other than insanity, but the defendant has denied from the beginning that there is anything wrong with him mentally. Just from a lay point of view, I think the man is very seriously ill. I spoke to Doctor Dobbs, who is more familiar with the case than any of the doctors who examined him — "The Court: Does she agree with the other doctors? There is no disagreement?

"Defense Counsel: I think that is right. Doctors Platkin and Hamman examined him. Doctor Dobbs informed me that she had serious doubts as to whether he was competent to stand trial, but she concluded on balance that he was competent.

"The Court: The letter from the hospital says he is competent to stand trial.

"Defense Counsel: Naturally he has a right to waive insanity defense, if he wants to. The case has given me considerable concern. It occurred to me just in the last five minutes. I wonder whether or not a civil commitment might be appropriate. I haven\'t discussed it with Government counsel at all. This man is, I think, going to be at Saint Elizabeths for a considerable length of time, if he were sent there.

"The Court: It is a jury question.

"Defense Counsel: It is a jury question in any event, because there is no opinion on productivity. He is a man of fifty years of age. In 1956 he was engaged in an altercation with another person and this person struck him on the head with a hatchet and sent him to the hospital. I talked to the attending physician, Doctor Rollins, R-o-l-l-i-n-s, here in Washington. He informed me that the man was in a coma for about a month. As a result, he is partially paralyzed and has a plate in his head. He looks like around 65, but he is only 50 years of age. This, of course, contributed considerably to his mental ailment, but Doctor Dobbs did tell me that he was probably suffering from the same mental illness prior to the injury, but the injury aggravated the condition. I wanted to inform the court that this has given me considerable concern, for on the factual question, there is no doubt that, in my opinion, he shot his wife, although he disclaims it.

"The Court: I am having difficulty understanding you.

"Defense Counsel: There is no doubt that he shot his wife, in my mind — assault with intent to kill her, carrying a dangerous weapon. He denies any involvement in the offense at all, but he just doesn\'t make any sense to me at all. He goes on and on about extraneous things.

"The Court: Now, Mr. Hubbart, I am not a psychiatrist and these psychiatrists out there say that he is mentally competent to stand trial. Do you think his condition has changed since the date they made this report?

"Defense Counsel: No. He has been the same all along, but possibly a civil commitment —

"The Court: If he has been there for ninety days, they ought to have an opinion.

"Defense Counsel: He is mentally competent to waive the insanity defense — they say he is, but —

"Government Counsel: Your Honor, I don\'t mean to interpret Mr. Hubbart, because he doesn\'t need that, but I think perhaps the court may be under the misunderstanding — Mr. Hubbart, I think, is trying to indicate that there is available a defense of insanity, but the defendant totally rejects that and places Mr. Hubbart, who believes that would be the appropriate defense, in the dilemma of

...