Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-03
|'Gop in Justice

AS counsel for Mrs. Clarice
B. Covert for more than two
years past, I cannot permit to
pass unchallenged the innu-
endo in your November IS ed
itorial, Gap in Justice" which
implies that the defense in
her case based on insanity
was simply a Pigment Of for
ensic imagination.
Here are the facts. taken
from the trial record. and
from the published opinions
Of the Board of Review and
the Court of Military Appeals
In her case.
In February, 1858, after
complaining of severe emo
tional depression, Mrs. Covert
was admitted to an Air Force
hospital for observation. and
after two weeks or 80 was dis
charged with instructions to
take sedatives. On March 8,
after the symptoms had grown
worse, she consulted an Army
doctor, who Immediately re-
ferred her to an Air Force
psychiatrist; the latter con-
ferred with her an hour and q
half on March 10. much longer
than was usual for o first in
terview. because of the patients
deeply disturbed state.
Sergeant Covert was killed
that night, after which Mrs.
Covert took all the sleeping
pills in her possession. and
spent the night on a narrow
cot next to her husbands
corpse.
At the original trial by
court martial. two Air Force
officers testified that the ac-
cused was psychotic at the
time of the act. three that
she was legally responsible in
the light of an Air Force
Manual on "Psychiatry In Mill
tary Law" which. unbeknown
to all concerned, had been
officially rescinded before the
trial commenced. All Of the
doctors agreed that Mrs. Cow
ert was not q menace to So
ciety at the time Of the trial.
Thereafter, two Of the Gov
eminent witnesses submitted
unsolicited post-trial affida-
Wits. to the effect that they
had been hampered in their
testimony by the Air Force
manual referred to above, and
that in their opinion Mrs.
Covert had been temporarily
insane at the time Of the act
and that the conviction was
a miscarriage Of justice.
The Court of Military APP
peals reversed the conviction.
not ION a technicality." as
your editorial enormously
states. but because in its view
the medical witnesses testi-
mony had been prejudicially
restricted.
The Air Force then insisted
that Mrs. Covert be again
tried by court-martial, al
though she had already been
confined substantially longer
than Toth's two co-accused--
who had never suffered from
any mental disturbance of any
kind when they killed the Ko-
rean civilian in that case.
Within the past two months,
all of the medical witnesses
who had examined Mrs. Co
vert in 1853 were interviewed
by trial and defense counsel
in preparation for the sched-
uled rehearing. Four Of the
five were prepared to testify
that in their opinion she
wasn't mentally responsible at
the time Of the act, and the
fifth had examined her less
than four hours in the aggre-
gate In 1858. Moreover, the
Army doctor who had seen
her on March 8, 1858, and who
had not testified in person at
the first trial because Of
change Of station, was pre-
pared to testify that in his
opinion she was definitely pre-
psychotic on March 8. and
that he would have hospital
lied her at once had she been
his patient.
In view of the foregoing,
most of which was already on
record in printed judicial
opinions, I submit that your
editorial does grave injus-
tlce to a most unfortunate
human being. I therefore re-
quest that, by way of partially
rectifying the injury done,
this communication be printed
in full.
Frederick Bernays Wiener.
Editors note: The editorial
did not imply that the insanity
defense for Mrs. Covert was
imaginative It did refer to
Mrs. Covert's conviction bSn
court-martial despite 0 do