Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-03-15
Ruling Held End
Of Psychiatrists'
Value 10 Courts
OverhoIser Suggests
Changing Privilege
Low for Accused
Ry Mirinm Qttenhero

eflnCen0ent OF ST EllZaDetnS
Hospital, today predicted that his
psychiatrists' usefulness to the
courts in criminal cases will be
completely nullified' under the
latest ruling of the q. S. Court
of Appeals for the District Of
Columbia.
The court. in reversing a rob-
berry conviction yesterday, ruled
that the lower court erred in re-
quiring a St, Elizabeths Hospital
psychiatrist to disclose that the
defendant had admitted taking
his mental illness.
The court said this was vio-
lation of the confidential rela-
tionship between doctor and pa
tent. The opinion emphasized
that the whole of the psychia-
trist's testimony was inadmis-
sible because of the Districts
privilege" statute.
Suggests Changing Law
eff this is the law of privi-
lege," DR.. Overholser said, i
believe serious consideration
should be given to changing the
law as it concerns persons under
criminal charges"
DR.. Overholser emphasized
that the decision caused no en-
barrassment to the hospital. He
added:
GAS a public official. however.
I am concerned about the effect
of the decision on our usefulness
to the court. As far as I can
see that is completely nullif1ed."
The court made a distinction
between testimony by a doctor
who only examines defendant
in order to be able to testify
about him and doctor who
treats patient. The opinion
said that the doctor who only
examines a patient may testify
because no confidential relation
ship has been established but
the doctor who treats comes I'M
der the privilege statute.
Says Two Can't Be Separated
DR.. Overholser said every per-
son sent to st. Elizabeths-
whether for observation or treat
ment-does get treatment.
You can't separate observa-
ton from treatment" he said.
Placing a person in a mental
hospital is to some extent treat
ment. Therefore. we would be
barred from testifying in any
case.
II can see how this will seri-
ously hamper the United States
Attorneys Office. There is no
point in sending prisoner here
for observation if We cannot
testify"
| DR.. Overholser went into the
question of malingering-a key
point in the case reversed yes
terday.
| There is no question that con-
tinued observation in a hospital
is far superior to any number of
relatively brief examinations at
the jail" he said. 1T is very
simple for a prisoner to put on
an act for half an hour at
time on different days. 1t is
next to impossible for him to
keep it up for "a hours a day
under constant observation. If
we find malingering. apparently
we will not be able to testify
about it,"
Conclusions Barred Too
Under the majority opinion,
he said, the psychiatrist presum-
ably not only will be barred from
quoting what the patient said
but also what the psychiatrist
concluded from his observations.
DR.. Overholser said he agreed
with the minority opinion in the
split decision that there was a
definite difference between pa
tients who came voluntarily or
were sent by their families tor
treatment and those sent by the
! courts.
! He said he favored the con-
fidentiality of records DIS a gen.
eral principle and certainly rec
ognized the doctor patient con-
fldential relationship in the case
OF civil patients.
Sees Different Footing"
But patients sent by the
courts for the purpose of adj
vising on their fitness to stand
trial are on quite a different
footing" he said. 1--WE would
not, of course, testify as to
what they said about the Of
Tense. That is specifically ex-
empted by statute. But I don't
see how we are going to give
evidence about their fitness to
! stand trial if we can't testify"
He pointed out that under
another appellate decision, in
the Gunther case. when a pris-
oner is released from ST. Eliza
beths as mentally competent to
stand trial, there must be a court
hearing to let the judge deter
mine if he is fit for trial. Before
the Gunther case. letter from
DR.. Overholser sufficed.
Since we can't separate obSer-
walton from treatment and the
court says if we treat the patient,
we cannot give evidence. how
is the court to know whether the
patient is mentally competent
to stand trial?" DR.. Overholser