Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-11-09
Defendant Was
Found Guilty
In Two HoIdups
By HOWARn .. nuTKIN

lAppSdlS tOudy SET ASIDE TWO JURY
lverdicts of guilty in robbery
eases against the same defendant
on the ground that he apparently
WAS insane at the time of the
crimes. New trials were sug-
IgeSted.
In its opinion, the court also
clarified heretofore unresolved
legal question arising from the
celebrated Durham sanity de-
cision.
Today's opinion held that the
old tests to determine mental
responsibility for crime
whether the suspect knew right
from wrong or whether he was
suffering from an irresistible
impulse-still may be used in adj
dition to the new tests under the
Durham rule.
The new tests, now held to be
supplementary but not sup
planting the older tests, require
that a verdict of not guilty by
reason of insanity must be rem
dered If the crime is believed to
be the product Of any mental
disease or defect.
Today's opinion involved
Charles Douglas. who had been
convicted, at two separate trials,
of the September. 1852, armed
robberies of the Ebbitt Hotel
and of the Court Hotel here.
Three months after the crimes,
while the trials we're pending.
Douglas was found to be of I'M
sound mind following a lunacy
linquisition.
1 He was kept in st. Elizaheths
Hospital until September 10.
1854, when he was judicially de-
termined to be mentally compe-
tent to stand trial.
Evidence Cited
In November. 1854, he was
found guilty of the Ebbitt rob-
berry and sentenced to serve two
to seven years. Later he was
convicted of the Court Hotel
holdup and given IL months to
seven years.
4 There was evidence in both
trials that the accused was Of
lunsound mind when the robberies
occurred" the appellate court de.
clared. 1t continued:
THE prosecution therefore
was under the necessity of es-
ltabliShing to the satisfaction of
1.-THE jury beyond a reasonable
doubt that the robberies were
not the result of Douglas In
sanity"
Although the juries found
douglas guilty, the opinion
POINTED out. "a jury may not be
upheld in arbitrarily convicting
of a crime" The court then in
Dictated that the juries' verdicts
were inconsistent with the evil
dence.
The opinion cited testimony of
one Government psychiatrist
who said he believed Douglas
mental illness extended as far
back as the month of the crimes.
Another Government PSYCHE
artist was quoted as testifying
Douglas suffered from dementia
praecox and that this mental
condition had a causal relation
ship to the robberies.
Gave No Opinion
A third Government psychi.
atrist testified that Douglas was
mentally i'll when examined sew
eral months after the crimes. But
the physician could not give an
opinion as to his state at the
time Of the robberies.
Other testimony cited was that
members Of Douglas family who
asserted he had attempted sui
eide.
On the other hand, one Of the
robbery victims testified Douglas
seemed normal. The arresting
Officers also testified he talked
lucidly and gave no indication Of
delusion.
Today's opinion, which was
written by Judge Charles. Fahy
with concurrence Of Chief Judge
Henry w. >Edgerton and Judge
George 7. Washington. declared:
Each case must be decided
upon its own facts. No uniform
legal principle is available TO
lead to like appraisal Of differ
ept factual situations. In the
lpfesent cases we are simply un-
able to say that the juries we're
warranted in failing to enter
tain a reasonable doubt that ex-
cept for a diseased mental condi-
ton Douglas would have COM
mitted the robberies !"
The court continued: -. It
would be inconsistent with appli-
cable legal standards TO hold on
the records as presently consti-
ltuted that punishment for GRIM
linal conduct rather than treat
ment for a mental disease was
the remedy"
Assistant United States At
Itorney Harold II. Greene said TO-
days opinion marked the FIRST
time the Appellate Court has
overruled a jury's findings as 10
sanity.