Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/350/366/
Timestamp: 2018-01-23 02:10:33
Document Index: 58101204

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4244', '§ 4244', '§ 4244', '§ 4247', '§ 4248', '§ 4248', '§ 8']

Earl P. GREENWOOD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America. | LII / Legal Information Institute
350 U.S. 366 (76 S.Ct. 410, 100 L.Ed. 412)
Argued: Jan. 25, 1956.
This case involves the construction and constitutional validity of the Act of September 7, 1949, 63 Stat. 686, now codified in 18 U.S.C. 42444248, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 42444248, 'To provide for the care and custody of insane persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, and for other purposes.'
Section 4244 provides a procedure for determining mental incompetency during the period 'after arrest and prior to the imposition of sentence or prior to the expiration of any period of probation.' 1 Section 4245 sets up a similar procedure for persons in prison believed to have been mentally incompetent at the time of their trial when the issue was not raised or determined before or during trial. Section 4246 states that whenever the trial court shall determine, under §§ 4244 and 4245, that an accused is or was mentally incompetent, the court may commit the accused to the custody of the Attorney General until the accused is mentally competent to stand trial or until the pending charges against him are disposed of according to law. Section 4246 further provides that if the court, after hearing as provided in the preceding §§ 4244 and 4245, finds that the conditions specified in § 4247 exist, the commitment shall be governed by § 4248. 2 Section 4247 states that when a prisoner's sentence is about to expire and the prison board of examiners finds him insane and a probable danger to the officers, property, or other interests of the United States, then the court shall hold a hearing and, if it determines that those conditions exist, it may commit the prisoner to the custody of the Attorney General. 3 Under § 4248 the commitment shall run until sanity is restored, or until the prisoner's condition is so improved that he will not endanger the officers, property, or other interests of the United States, or until suitable arrangements are made for the care of the prisoner by his State of residencereserving to the prisoner his right to establish his eligibility to release by writ of habeas corpus. 4
A detailed history of the legislation is set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. 219 F.2d at pages 380384. It is sufficient to note here that the bill was proposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States after long study by a conspicuously able committee, followed by consultation with federal district and circuit judges.
We reach then the narrow constitutional issue raised by the order of commitment in the circumstances of this case. The petitioner came legally into the custody of the United States. The power that put him into such custodythe power to prosecute for federal offensesis not exhausted. Its assertion in the form of the pending indictment persists. The District Court has found that the accused is mentally incompetent to stand trial at the present time and that, if released, he would probably endanger the officers, property, or other interests of the United Statesand these findings are adequately supported. In these circumstances the District Court has entered an order retaining and restraining petitioner, while in his present condition, with habeas corpus always available when circumstances warrant. This commitment, and therefore the legislation authorizing commitment in the context of this case, involve an assertion of authority, duly guarded, auxiliary to incontestable national power. As such it is plainly within congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Art. I, § 8, cl. 18.