Evening star., 1954-11-05
6-Point Inquiry
Scheduled on
Sanity Rulings
Low Enforcement
Group Acts to Guard
Public, individuals
Ry Mirinm Qtfenhern
By Miriom Gutenberg

A six-point investigation of the
recent decisions on insanity de-
fenseS in criminal cases has been
agreed on by a special committee
of the District Council on Law
Enforcement, Committee Chair
man George Hart said today.
Mr.. Hart reported that the
five-man committee at it's first
session agreed that criminal pro-
cedures and law should be de-
signed to protect both the public
and the individual charged with
crime.
The committee, he said, would
base it's investigation on this
question: "Is a proper balance
of interest achieved in the Dis
trict in regard to protection of
both the public and the individ-
ual under the law as announced
by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Co.
lumbia ?"
Key Points Stressed.
He said the committee had de-
cided to study the question of
the protection of the public and
the protection of the individual
from these six angles:
/. The legal test of irrespon-
Sibility as established in the
Durham case. (This eliminated
the old tests Of insanity, which
provided that a man could not
be held responsible for his act if
at the time of the crime he
could not distinguish between
right and wrong or was so men
tally deranged that he acted
under an irresistible impulse.
Under the Durham test. man
is not held responsible if a men,
tai disease or a mental defect
caused him to commit the
crime.)
2. The "some evidence" rule
established in the earlier Tatum
case and the Durham case and
its relation to the burden of
proof" on the prosecution. (Un-
der the Tatum case, if the de-
fendant submits ''some evidence"
of insanity, the prosecution has
to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the man was not
insane and the court must ad-
dress the jury on the question
Of sanity,)
Disposition of Defendants.
3. The disposition of defend
ants found not guilty by reason
of insanity. (The appellate court
recently reminded lower court
judges that they have discretion
TO send such defendants to St.
Elizabeths Hospital, even though
the defendants had been found
mentally competent to stand
trial. The hospital. however, has
said it cannot hold persons of
sound mind)
4. The procedure for releasing
these defendants when they are
considered of sound mind. lin
this connection, the Massachu-
setts law will be studied. Under
this law. defendants found not
guilty of capital crimes on
grounds of insanity are COM
mitted to a mental hospital for
life and can be released only if
the Governor-after an investi-
cation by his director of mental
health - decides they are no
longer a danger to others.)
Procedures for Trial.
5. Procedures provided in the
Gunther and Contee cases for
determining a defendant is men,
tally competent to stand trial
(The court ruled that the previ-
Gus practice of a certificate from
the mental hospital that a de-
fendant is fit for trial Is not
enough. Now the court must
hold a hearing at which the
psychiatrists testify on the pris-
oneris mental competency
s. The test provided in the
Wear case for determining when
a defendant is entitled to a men
tai examination.