Evening star., 1955-03-14

I"CCLl PliySlCldIl aIlO pdCleQC COIL
templated and treated by the
statute which confers the doctor
patient privilege. Under such
circumstances. the Government
as matter of public concern,
is entitled to the benefit of the
testimony of those doctors.
whether as to diagnosis. treat
ment or observation.
1T is contrary to the interests
OF justice to give such an &C
cuSed person power to close the
mouths of those doctors"
Nothing was confidential
about Taylor's admissions to Dr..
Epstein. They were made before
conference of several physi-
clans.
6. Taylor's admission to DR..
Epstein and his confreres that
his hallucinations and delusions
were just a gag is not covered
by the privilege statute.
Not Realistic. Judge Says
Certainly" said Judge Pretty
man, IAN admission of guilt to
crime would not be privileged
by this statute. Reasonably.
then. an admission of the falsity
of a defense ought not to be
privileged"
Commenting on the fact that
the majority did not object to
Dr.. Gilbert's testimony, Judge
Prettyman declared:
This court now holds that
Taylor has the power, by refus-
ing consent to the doctors teSti-
mony. to close the mouth of any
Government doctor who observed
or treated him while he was at
St. Elizabeths and who says he
was and is sane and competent; f;
but he can clear for admission
into evidence the testimony OF
any doctor who says he is in
sane OF incompetent.
DIR. Gilbert can testify. but
Dr.. Epstein cannot. And this in
spite of the fact that Dr.. Gilbert
made only spot examinations ION
five separate days. whereas Dr.
Epstein observed and treated the
man regularly for six months
To me this result is simply not
realistic or in the public inter-
est"
Referred to Gunther Case
The majority opinion referred
to the Gunther case in which the
appellate court ruled that an ac-
cused who has been found men,
tally incompetent to stand trial
cannot be tried until the court
has ruled that he is now men
tally competent.
Taylor had no such judicial
determination since the Gunthel
decision came after his trial. II
this were the only error, the
appellate court said, justice
might be served by sending the
case back to the lower court to
determine in hearing whether
he was competent to stand trial
when he was tried and sentenced
A new trial. however, was con-
sidered necessary by Judges Ed
gerton and Washington because
of the Epstein testimony and the
judges charge to the jury. Judge
Alexander Holtzoff presided al
the District Court trial.
The majority objected to thu
judges statement that the de.
fendant's mental capacity tt
stand trial had been established
by his release from st. Eliza
beths.
Judge Edgerton wrote that the
Jury should not be told that tn.
accused has been found compe.
tent to stand trial.
THE judges statement" he
said. therefore violated tht
statute. We cannot say it did
not prejudice the defense of in.
sanity"
The opinion also ruled thai
the Judge enormously stated tha
DR.. Epstein's diagnosis did moi
bring the accused within the
legal definition of insanity. Tht
majority held it was for the jury
not the judge, to decide that.
Counters Argument
Judge Edgerton did not q
along with another argument
raised on appeal that the Judge
in effect had told the jury tha'
if the defendant were acquitted
he would go free.
He observed, however, tina
when an accused has pleaded in
sanity. counsel may and tn,
judge should inform the jur.
WnmznHzzanaznzlzIuzIHl
Mm N IN N WM "A M1