Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-07-18
Was He Really Insane?

VUS HS NSuHy IHSUHSs
It was raining on the night of March
IL, 1858, when Harry Honikman was killed.
He and his wife and daughter were getting
ready to close up their grocery store when
the bandit walked in. Mr.. Honikman
pleaded with the man to take the money
about 500. But the bandit was vicious,
Without the slightest proyocation, he pulled
gun and murdered the grocer.
The hunt began. Initially there was
nothing to go on, and the killers friends
and relatives tried to cover up for Him. But
In the end, thanks to excellent and per-
sistent police work, the gunman, Willie Lee
Stewart, was caught In due time he was
tried and convicted Of firSt-degree murder.
At the trial Stewart Sdefenses were ~
that he was not In the store at the time
Of the crime, and (2) that he was insane.
The first defense was simple lie. Be-
yond any doubt, he committed the murder.
The trial jury also found that he was sane
within the meaning of the law, and this
was the crucial question in the Court Of
Appeals.
The appellate judgeS-Bazelon, Edger-
ton and Washington-now have reversed
the conviction They found that the trial
judge erred in making distinction be-
tween mental disease and mental disorder,
and that this error was highly prejudicial"
to the defendant.
At this point the case Of Monte Durham
enters the picture. Durham was house
breaker and bad-check artist WHO had
pleaded insanity and whose conviction was
set aside few weeks ago by the same
appellate judges. as
Prior to the Durham decision, the plea
80 iVaen ik~p1r TNan =
trict If the accused man did not know the
difference between right and wrong, or, II
he was able to make this distinction, he
nevertheless was subject, by reason of in
sanity, to an irresistible impulse to commit
the offense.
Judges Bazelon, Edgerton and Wash
ington decided to break new ground. These
old tests, they said, were outmoded by the
advances In psychiatric knowledge. Thus,
the old tests were strapped and new one
prescribed. AS the court defined the new
test, sit is simply that the accused is not
criminally responsible if his unlawful act
was the product of mental disease or
mental defect"
That decision meant new trial for
Durham. Presumably he will again plead
insanity. Perhaps he will be held not
guilty by reason of insanity under the new
test. In that event, he undoubtedly will be
sent to st. ElizabethS-no new experience
for him. In the past several years he has
been in and out Of st. ElizabethS three
times, each discharge being predicated on
finding of Sound mind" and the third one
coming only two months before the house
breaking. There certainly is every prospect
that Durham soon will be at large If he is
committed again. He does not seem to be
the violent type, however, SO this may not
be too alarming prospect.
But let us turn back to the case Of
Willie Lee Stewart. When a court lays
down new insanity defense test, it applies
to the Willie Lee Stewards as well as to the
Monte Durhams. So what may the people
Of Washington anticipate?
At Stewards trial there was the IA
miliar conflict of psychiatric testimony. An
expert witness called by the defense testi-
fed that Stewart was insane within the
then existing meaning of the law. Two
psychiatristS called by the Government
and this may prove to be highly significant
testified that he was sane under the old
standards.
So now the case must be tried again
and tried under the new test, which is more
favorable to Stewart than was the old
Suppose the new jury believes the defense
psychiatrist, and finds Stewart not guilty
by reason of insanity Presumably he
would be committed to Gallirger or st.
Elizabeths But two Government experts
have already testified under oath to their
belief that Stewart was sane under the old
tests. Is it probable that they would take
q different view under the new test? The
answer, especially in the light Of Monte
Durhams record at st. Elizabeths, is that
they probably would not. There is at least
strong possibility that Stewart, If found
not guilty by reason Of insanity, will be
walking the streets of washington again
before many months have passed.
tits in the light of such possibility
as this that the new law" pronounced in
the Durham case is so disturbing.
Judges, especially appellate judges, do
not concern themselves with criminals
victims. Rarely do they express any con-
Germ for the welfare and safety of the law
abiding public. Their concern, as in the
Stewart and Durham cases, Is to- see that
the criminal has the benefit Of every safe
guard which the law provides, or which
may result from making new law.
1T seems to The Star. hoWAyer. that