Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-03-20
By Miriam Ottenberq

Inc united STATES COurC OF
Appeals for the District of Co.
lumbia removed the gag from
psychiatrists in one decision and
put it back on again in another,
a group of lawyers and psychia-
trists testified yesterday.
They appeared at an all-day
session of the District Council of
Law Endorsements special sub
committee to study the impact
of a series of appellate court de-
cisions involving insanity claims
in criminal cases.
Most of the witnesses favored
an appellate decision broadening
the insanity defense and giving
psychiatrists more latitude in
their testimony.
Most Of, them attacked the
more recent decision barring the
testimony of psychiatrists who
treat" prisoners and might tes-
tify that they malingered. That
decision was described variously
as absurd, unfortunate" and
"ludicrous."
George l.. Hart, jr., subcom-
mittee chairman, repeatedly eau
toned the witnesses that there
was nothing to be gained by
questioning the ACCESSIBILITY of
the decisions. He emphasized
that the subcommittee wants to
know if the interests of the pub
lie and the defendants are in
balance under the decision and,
if not, what should be done
about it.
Legislative Proposals Made
These legislative proposals
were made by one or more of
the witnesses:
l. The privilege which now
bars psychiatrist from testify
ing about a prisoner he has
treated should be waived and
the psychiatrist should be al
lowed to testify if the prisoner
bases his defense on insanity
at the time of the crime.
2. Defendants acquitted by
reason of insanity should not
under any circumstances be al
lowed to go free in the commu-
nifty. There should be manda-
tory commitment to a mental
hospital for an indefinite period.
8. Judges should have the
right to determine whether the
request for a mental examina-
ton is reasonable-a discretion
they had until one of the appel
late decisions removed it.
4. A certificate from st. Eliza
beths Hospital that a man is
now At to stand trial. possibly
followed by a court order, should
suffice to clear the way for trial
without the necessity of a court
hearing. Such a hearing has
been required following another
of the appellate decisions.
Those Who Testified
Testifying were Assistant
United States Attorney Gerard
O'Brien, who has argued most
OF the recent insanity cases on
appeal; DR.. Winfred Overholser,
st. Elizabeths Hospital superin-
tendent; DR.. zigmund M. Leb-
ensohn, psychiatrist in private
practice; DR.. Robert H. Groh,
chairman of the District Medical
Society's mental health subcom-
mittee; Hugh MCGEE, chairman
of the District Bar Association S
mental health committee; DR..
Thomas E. Griffin, chief of the
legal psychiatric services of the
District Health Department; DR..
Manfred Guttmacher, chief med
ical officer of the Supreme bench
of Baltimore; Abe Fortas, attor-
ney who wrote the brief in the
case changing the yardstick for
criminal responsibility; Edward
DeGrazia, attorney who wrote
the brief in the case barring
psychiatric testimony as a mat
ter of privilege. and DR.. E. Y.
Williams, head of the neuropsy-
chiatric department at Howard
University.
Here are highlights from their
testimony:
The Taylor decision. I'm this
case, decided last Monday, the
appellate court held that psy-
chiatrists who treat" prisoners
come under the privilege" sta