Evening star., 1962-01-07

swers to two of the questions now
raised in the Supreme Court. In
one case, the appellate court ruled
that even a proclivity for writing
bad checks was enough to make
a man dangerous.
Constitutional Rights
In another case, the appellate
court rejected the contention
advanced by the American Civil
Liberties Union-that automatic
commitment to a mental hospital
after acquittal on grounds of in
sanity violates Constitutional
rights.
The case now before the Su-
preme Court involves a bad check
writer and again the American
Civil Liberties Union, this time as
friend of the court" is claiming
that the mandatory commitment
law is unconstitutional.
The man in the case is Fred
erick c. Lynch, 42-year-old for
mer Air Force lieutenant colonel
who got into trouble for writing
bad checks. On the day he pleaded
not guilty in November, 1859, he
was sent to District General Hos
pital for mental examination.
A month later, the hospital re-
ported that he was mentally in
competent to stand trial but on
December %, 1859, the hospital
said he had shown some improve
ment and now appeared able to
understand the charges against
him. At the same time, however,
the hospital reported that Lynch
was suffering from a manic de-
pressive psychosis at the time of
the crime and that "such an ill
ness would particularly affect his
judgment in regard to financial
matters, so that the Grim
charged would be product of
this mental disease"
The report thus spelled out the
insanity defense under the Dur
ham rule, but when Lynch came
to trial his court-appointed coun-
sci chose not to use this defense.
Instead, he advised his client to
plead guilty. Chief Judge John
Lewis Smith. jr., of Municipal
Court refused to accept the guilty
plea. After trying the case, he
found Lynch not guilty by reason
of insanity and ordered him COM
mitted to st. Elizabeths.
Hobeos Corpus Proceeding
After six months in the hos
pital, Lynch filed a habeas corpus
petition attacking the legality of
his confinement on the grounds
that Municipal Courts refusal to
allow him to plead guilty deprived
him of his liberty without due
process of law, that an "impoS-
sible burden" had been placed on
him to rebut the psychiatric
testimony, that his commitment
violated the safeguards of the
civil commitment law and that
the 1855 mandatory commitment
law was unconstitutional.
The District Court Judge
granted the habeaS corpus petit
ton, not on constitutional grounds,
but on his belief that Municipal
Court did not have jurisdiction
to commit Lynch to the hospital.
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
In a 6-3 decision, the appellate
court ruled that Judge Smiths
action was not only "far from an
abuse of discretion but also it
would seem affirmatively to have
been the best possible decision,
if not the only just one"
While the appeal was pending,
lynch was given a conditional re-
lease from the hospital, but he
was ordered back to the hospital
in April, 1861, after the court was
told that Lynch created a dis
turbance in a Connecticut avenue
restaurant by holding a mirror
in front of the faces of women
diners and making disparaging re-
marks about their looks The court
was also advised that in a two
week period, Lynch had written 80
bad checks.
Shortly after Lynch was re-
turned to the hospital, his at
torneys petitioned the Supreme
Court to review his case and the
American Civil Liberties Union
came in as friend of the court"
Decisions Are Attacked
The contentious of Lynch and
the American Civil Liberties
Union in effect attack all the later
decisions of the Court of Appeals
dealing with commitment to the
hospital and release from it. They
contend that only the defendant
can raise the insanity issue, not
the judge or prosecutor; tn
those accused of nonviolent crimes
like check-writing should not be
covered by the mandatory COM
mitment law and that those found
not guilty by reason of insanity
should be given a pre-commit-
ment hearing to determine their
present mental condition.
The Government diSagrees on
all these arguments, citing Court
OF Appeals decisions and the in
tent of Congress to strike a bal
ance between the rights of the in
dividual and the rights of society.
In its brief, the Government
points out that in more than 80
opinions since the Durham case,
the court here has developed a
body of law to achieve that
balance.
The Government brief makes a