Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-14


In spite of q jury verdict
committing a robbery here on
Sheldon Matthews on Friday
verdict Of not guilty by reason
of insanity in favor of Durham.
This was q landmark Of sorts
in the controversy that has
centered around Durham and
the Durham rule" set up here
In 1854 when the United States
Court Of Appeals for the Dis
trict reversed his conviction for
a 1851 housebreaking.
The appellate court ruled
that a jury must bring in a
verdict Of not guilty by reason
of insanity II the defendants
act was the product Of a men,
tai disease or defect.
Served One Year
Yet-until Friday-Durham
had never enjoyed the fruits OF
this ruling. He was tried again
and convicted again after a Sec
ond insanity plea. Though the
second conviction was reversed
on grounds the trial judge erred
in his instructions to the Jury
Durham didn't have a third
HOUSEKEEPING trial. He plead
ed guilty to petty larceny and
served a year in jail.
The controversial Durham
rule. in effect, pushed aside a:
outmoded and inadequate, the
legal insanity tests that had APP
piled in criminal courts in the
District before 1854.
These tests provided for ar
insanity verdict where the de-
PENDANT in a case didn't know
right from wrong at the time Of
the crime charged and COM
mitted it because he was COM
PEELED by an Irresistible i'm
pulse"
In the Durham opinion writ
ten by Appellate Court Judge
David L, Bazelon, the great
strides in the field of psychiatry
in the past 100 years were cited.
Also pointed up was the argu-
ment Of psychiatrists that a
person can know right from
wrong and still be mentally i'll.
Opponents of the Durham
rule have charged the new test
because of its broad terms
has encouraged criminals to
attempt to "bug out" (seek es-
cape from a guilty verdict
through the insanity route)
and has resulted in early re-
lease for further careers OF
crime by criminals who-ex-
cept for the element of insan-
ity-would have ended up in
jail.
Plea Is Popular
Figures from the hospital
support the contention that
the insanity plea is becoming
more popular. From 1851
through 1854 only Is defend
ants were committed to st
Elizabeths as a result of in
sanity verdictS-an average Of
almost 4 a year.
Since the end OF 1854, vel
over IS have gone to the hos
pital-aIl average of more thar
IL per year. OF those released
from the hospital as recovered
after commitment because OF
insanity verdict under the Dur
ham rule, only 3 out of the IL
released by early this year hac
been re-arrested, on relatively
minor charges.
A development prompted by
the fear that the Durham rule
would put insane" criminal;
on the street, was the passage
in 1855 of a local law making
mandatory the previously dis
cretionary court commitment
to st. Elizabeths of those ac-
quilted by reason of insanity.
Perhaps the most significant
insanity decision since the Dur
ham opinion was the appellate
courts July rulAg on what DR.
Winfred Overholser, superin-
tendent of st. Elizabeths Hos
pital calls the "wastebasket OF
psychiatry" - the sociopathiC
personality disturbance. 1t is
manifested by antisocial be-
havior.
Its legal. complications have
already been recognized by the
American Law Institute which
proposed a Model Penal Code
section on insanity tests spe-
officially excluding it.
Leach Case Cited
1t first came up here in the
case Of John d. Leach, who was
found not guilty by reason OF
insanity after st. Elizabeths
Hospital doctors announced an
overnight change in hospital
policy and said Leach was men