Evening star., 1942-09-05
Hobeus Corpus RuIinq

7oDeoS corpus kulIng
A decision broadening the rights OF
petitioners in habeas corpus actions
and correspondingly curbing the low
er courts In dealing with them has
Just been announced by the United
States Court of Appeals in a case
growing out of the efforts of a st.
Elizabeth's Hospital inmate to win
. release. The ruling easily may en-
courage burdensome volume of liti-
cation here.
n. The facts are these:
VII One Dennis w. Roster. who was
kerving a prison term for assault with
g. dangerous weapon, was adjudged
insane by a District Court jury in
February, 1910, and transferred to St.
Elizabeth's. In July, 1910, he unsuc-
cessfully sought release, Jury again
holding him insane. His sentence
expired the following October, and
then for the second time he petit
toned for writ of habeas corpus,
contending he was sane and that his
Incarceration was illegal. Explaining
he could not afford the cost of liti-
cation, Roster asked permission to
prosecute the action as a pauper.
c. Justice Bolitha ]. Laws, hearing
the case, took cognizance of the
background of the petitioner and
of testimony by Doctor Winifred
Overholser, superintendent of the
hospital, that his mental condition
was unchanged. and, ruling that the
application was without merit, de-
MED Roster the privilege of proceed
ing as pauper. This was tanta-
mount to rejecting the plea for free
dom, and the court also held that the
man could not note an appeal as a
pauper. =. - sa.
The Ut4ited States Court of Ap-
peals, however, accepted the appeal,
and has held in a two to- one deci-
sion that the lower court should have
gone through the formality of hear
ing in october, 1910. The case has
been remanded for further action.
In deciding that District Court did
not have discretionary power to de-
eide the case on the basis of the
petitioners history, Justice Stephens,
Joined by Justice Vinson, laid down
the broad principle that habeas
OF do
mands either issuance of the writ or
a rule requiring parties in opposi-
tion to show cause why it should not
be issued unless it appears from the
petition itself" that the relief should
not be granted Further, the court
said, petitioner has only to show
probable cause" to justify writ.
On this premise, the court also con-
cluded that Roster had a right to
proceed as pauper because the
question of his poverty was not IN
dispute.
Dissenting, Justice Rutledge said
that the District Court was entitled
to take notice of the fact that the
petitioner had been adjudged insane
twice within nine months, and that
TO deny further proceedings at that
stage was consistent with the "rea-
sonable restrictions" court may i'm
pose in the absence of a statute to
the contrary. Adequate protection
Of an individuals rights, Justice
Rutledge added, does not require "a
litigious capacity of such nuisance
value that hearings must be had
repeatedly upon the same issue"
The necessity for restricting this
type of litigation is illustrated by the
record for the last quarter of 1941,
when thirty-eight applications for
habeas corpus were filed by st. Eliza
beth's inmates. Only eight reached
the hearing stage, and In no instance
was the writ granted.