Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-07-22
Appeals Court
Sanity
Test Pleas
soys Judges Must
Gr0nt Motions for
Mental Examination

0fQHT M0rl0nS tor
Mental Examination
The United States Court Of
Appeals for the District Of CO.
lumbia today ruled that q Judge
must grant motions for q mental
examination. Of y defendant to-
determine his compe tency to
stand trial as hng as the mo-
tions are not frivolous.
IN its ruling the court reversed
the conviction Of James r..
Wear. jr.. on forgery charges,
and remanded the case to the
u. S. District Court for the Dis
trict Of Columbia for q deter
mination of the defendants SAM
ity and q new trial IL he is
deemed competent.
Wear had been sentenced TO
serve 16 months to four years
after his conviction In 1853.
Acquitted Previously.
Defense counsel had moved
for q mental examination at the
trial. They produced records
showing that nine months be-
fore the trial. Wear had been
acquitted by reason Of insanity
on charges Of larceny and forg-
cry in Baltimore court.
Other records showed that he.
was subsequently committed to.
the Spring Grove State Hospital
at Gainesville, Md. Hospital data
showed that he had adjusted
wen to the hospital and the Dsy-
chotic episode seemed to be in
remission and that he was q re-
sponsible agent at the time he
left the hospital"
He was never discharged from
the institution as cured, but he
escaped on August IS. 1852.
Baltimore court records intro
duced at the trial here showed
that in mental examination
made at the time Of his Balti-
more arrest he was found to be
grossly psychotic."
Judges Remark Cited.
Today's opinion cited the mo-
ton made for mental examina-
ton at the time Of the District
trial and stated that the trial
Judge, T. Blake Kennedy, q
visiting Judge from Cheyenne.
Wyo., reserved his ruling until
the trials end, saying, When !
start a trial ! like to go on
through with it"
During the trial here, Wear
apparently was seized with a At.
He was examined bya medical
officer, not d psychiatrist. who
later testified that the defend
ant:
was either-and I am unable
to distinguish Inalingering or
historical"
After the verdict Of guilty was
returned, defense counsel again
asked for a mental examination
Of the defendant. The court.
two days later at the time Of
sentencing. ruled against the
motion.
Judge Kennedy declared that
he believed the defendant was
o malingerer. when he gets
out after being in an institution
he goes about cashing checks
and acting in q normal manner.
To me that means he is sane, "
the Judge said.
Called s'CriminaIly Sane"
He continued: Instead of being
criminally insane, ne is criminal
" sane Il. and ! think can pass
a sentence with the recon-
mendation that he be given such
treatment as he may desire and
as the authorities may deem
necessary In this case"
In reversing Judge Kennedy's
ruling. the Appellate Court cited
a statute pertaining to mental
examinations, and declared: We
conclude. however. that certain
requirements) confer upon the
court merely the limited power
to review the motion and to
deny it when the ground alleged
is frivolous or when the motion
Is not made in good faith"
The court continued: 1T fol-
lows that the trial court erred
in denying the instant motion.
which plainly was neither frivol-
Gus nor in bad faith. The judg-.
ment of the District Court isaac
cordingly reversed. and the case
remanded for q new trial, with
opportunity for determination of
appellants tWear's) mental
competency to stand trial. j"
The court declared there was
little incentive in a non-capital
case for q defendant to seek q
finding of mental incompetency.
since he may be committed to an
institution and tried later if he
is cured.
The opinion was written by
Judge David Z. Bazelon. Judge
George T. washington concurred
but Judge E. Barrett Prettyman
diSsented in part.
Judge Prettyman declared the
case should be sent back to de-
terinine IL the defendant was
competent to stand trial at the
time of the original proceeding
rather than at any future trial.
The judge declared that II the
defendant is found to have been
originally competent the first
verdict should stand. ohviating
the necessity Of the expense of
. new trial. The judge also
stated that II he is found not to