Evening star., 1954-11-07
|3Groups Study
Courts Rulings
On Sanity Tests
Lawyers Believe
Decisions Affect
Criminal Lows
By Niriom ottenbsra

BY Miriam Gutenberg
The recent court. decisions ca
insanity In criminal eases have
attracted 90 much community
attention that three groups are
now making independent In
vestigations Of the decisions and
vestigations Of the decisions and
their effects, q survey showed
yesterday.
The groups are:
The District Medical Society's
mental health committee,
headed by DR.. Robert II. Groh.
This group Of psychiatrists plans
to report its findings 10 the full
society for action. Presumably,
its concern is with facilities and
personnel for mental examina-
tions.
The District Bar Associations
mental health committee, headed
by Hugh MCGEE. Mr.. McGee said
he would ask the entire associa-
ton at It's meeting Tuesday night
for assistance from other mem
bers. pointing out that these
decisions affect the whole field
Of criminal law.
Six-Point Investigation.
The District Council on Law
Endorsements special committee
to study these decisions, headed
by George Hart. This committee
has set up a six-point investiga-
ton and has called on the public
generally and attorneys and psy-
chiatrists particularly to write
Mr.. Hart regarding any aspects
OF the decisions which they feel
should be considered.
The decisions were handed
down during the summer by the
United States Court of Appeals
for the District Of Columbia.
They change the test of respon-
sibility as well as procedures for
determining mental competence
to stand trial.
A panel discussion on the de-
cisions will feature George
Washington Uniyersity'S first
annual Law Day next Saturday.
DR.. Winfred OverholSer, SUI
perintendent Of st. Elizabeths
Hospital, will be moderator.
The effects of the decisions
were thrashed out at closed
session of Mr.. McGee's group
Friday with DR.. Groh, Mr.. Hart.
DR.. Overholser, several Assistant
United States Attorneys, and
representatives of the Commits
sion on Mental Health.
Call for Clarification.
Mr.. MCGEE said both the at
torneys and psychiatrists at the
session agreed that some clari-
fication as to what is a mental
defect" is needed. The appellate
court, in the key case changing
the test of criminal responsible
ity, ruled that man cannot be
held responsible for his act If it
was caused by a mental disease
or mental defect. S
DR.. OverhoIser, according to
Mr.. MCGEE. said his principal
problem under these decisions
was what to do with defendants
found not guilty by reason Of
insanity and sent back to st.
Elizabeths. He was referring to
defendants found mentally COM
petent to stand trial and then
acquitted. The appellate court
has said these defendants should
be sent back to the mental hos
pital. st. Elizabeths, however,
has said it cannot hold persons
of sound mind.
The prosecutors, Mr.. MCGEE
said, expressed concern about
the question of proving that the
defendant had no mental disease
or defect. Under the appellate
decisions, If the defendant pro-
duces "some evidence" of in
sanity. the burden of proof rests
on the prosecution to establish
sanity.
Cites Hypothetical Case.
Mr.. MCGEE said a prosecutor
cited a hypothetical case in
which the defendants sole de-
tense was q statement that he
did not remember a thing on
the day of the crime. The ques-
ton centered on how the prose-
cution should go about proving
that he was rational.
Mr.. MCGEE said the psychia-
trists attending the session ex-
pressed their approval of the
appellate decision substituting
mental disease or mental defect"
for the old tests of sanity -
whether or not the accused could
distinguish between right or
wrong or was impelled by an
irresistible impulse.
He said those attending the
session agreed the decisions
raised many complex questions
and while the interests of the
various groups might be different
they would work together to de-
termine whether legislation