Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-04-24
Major Revision Urged
For DC. insanity Law
Continued From First Page

VI 1s Ss HBbSN
Continued From First Page
the law as 1t exists today in the
District Of Columbia"
Found Unbalanced
Mr.. Hart said the committee
set out to determine whether the
laws-as interpreted in these
cases and the common law
provided q proper balance be-
tween the interests Of the public
and Of the accused.
I'VE concluded 1t wasn't In
balance" he said. I'VE concluded
there was dangerous imbalance
in favor Of the accused. 1t was
no one case, but all of them
taken together which produced
this imbaIance. We recommend
legislative action to bring the
laws into proper balance"
The drafts Of the proposed
new laws were handed to the
council with the report. At pres
ent. District Court generally
operates under the Federal stat
utes involving mental questions
in criminal cases. and Municipal
Court operates under the Dis
trict code. The committee 10
proposing that District Court
should follow the District code,
and its proposed drafts all would
amend the District code. It was
explained that this was recon-
mended in order to have all the
changes considered by the Dis
trict Committees of the House
and the Senate.
Procedures Comparable
Here's how the laws affecting
insanity worked before the ap-
pellate courts series of decisions,
how they work now and how the
committee wants them changed:
Demands for mental EXAMINE
ations-Before last July. if an
accused claimed he was mentally
unfit to stand trial. 1t was up
to the Judge to decide whether
he or his attorney had reason
able grounds for demanding O
mental examination. The prose-
cution could and did fight some
Of these demands.
Under the Wear decision last
July, the court ruled that the
judge must grant requests for
mental examinations II they
were made in good faith and not
frivolous. The examinations
usually were made in the jail
rotunda.
The committee decided that
the question Of frivolity or bad
faith would require the Judge to
read the attorneys mind and
that 1t therefore became too easy
to get a mental examination and
thus start building q mental his
tory. So the committee recon-
mended that the accused must
present q prima facie case
evidence which taken at its face
value would indicate the accused
was mentally incompetent and
should have a mental examina-
ton.
The draft also proposed that
the mental examination be con-
Quoted in District General Hos
pital or other mental hospital
where 24-hour observation
over a period of time would be
more likely to uncover malin-
gerers. If the psychiatrists found
a defendant mentally incompe-
tent to stand trial. he could have
a jury trial If hesrequested it--
another change.
Mental competence to stand
trial.-Before last July, when a
defendant was found mentally
incompetent, went to st. Eliza
beths Hospital and later was
found fit for trial. the hospital
superintendent sent a letter to
the court certifying that the
man was ready for trial. and he
went to trial.
Under the Gunther decision
last July, the appellate court
ruled that the court must hold q
hearing on the defendants men
tai competence after he returned
from st. Elizabeths, that the GER
tiflcate was not enough.
The committee decided that
while this was primarily an adj
ministrative problem, it created
unnecessary expense and dim
Guilty to have a psychiatrist tes-
tify in person to what he had
already put in writing. The
committee therefore proposed
that when the mental compe-
tency certificate was received
from st. Elizabeths. the court
could sign an order directing the
defendant to go to trial. The
defendant could demand a court
hearing or the judge could order
1t on his own initiative, but
otherwise the case would go to
trial without further hearing.
Insanity as q defense-Before
last July, a jury could acquit q
defendant on grounds Of insan-
ity II it found that he could not
distinguish right from wrong or
that he suffered from an "Hre-