Case Name: Leroy J. ELLIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-02-25
Citations: 345 F.2d 961
Docket Number: No. 18424
Parties: Leroy J. ELLIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 345
Pages: 961–964

Head Matter:
Leroy J. ELLIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18424.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Argued May 8, 1964.
Decided Feb. 25, 1965.
Mr. John McDaniel, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court), for appellant.
Mr. Nathan Lewin, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Washington and Burger, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter. According to prosecution witnesses, appellant fought with James Wilson, Jr., and struck him on the head with a wooden board on June 30, 1963. One week later, on July 6, Wilson was found by a police officer lying unconscious on the street. The Deputy Coroner testified that Wilson died on July 6 from "increased intracranial pressure due to an epidural, which is a collection of blood above the thickest covering of the brain, between the thickest covering of the brain and the skull He also testified that Wilson had a fractured skull and that his blood at his death contained 0.25 per cent alcohol.
Appellant testified that two police officers, who had arrested him for the alleged offense, told him "that they knew that James Wilson was released from the hospital the same night I was supposed to have hit him and they also knew he was picked up for being drunk on the 6th of July." His testimony that the police told him Wilson was released from a hospital following the June 30 fight was not contradicted. Although the Government called one of the arresting officers, he was not asked about this; neither were any hospital records introduced. On the record in its present state the causal connection between appellant's blow and Wilson's death was attenuated. The Go' jrnment put on medical evidence that si.ch a time gap between a blow on the head and the victim's death from the blow is possible ; but it is also possible that some intervening event caused Wilson's death. If Wilson was, in fact, admitted to the hospital on June 30, examined, and released that night, this would'weaken the causal chain still further. It seems improbable that a man with a severe head injury with fatal potentialities would be treated so casually by a hospital. Hence, evidence of a hospital discharge, without some explanation of the reasons for discharge, would tend to exculpate appellant.
The Government's case is such, that under these peculiar facts, we think it appropriate to remand the case for a further hearing to explore appellant's allegation of the Government's knowledge of Wilson's hospitalization on June 30. If the police or prosecutor knew of evidence that appellant's blow might not have been the proximate cause of Wilson's death, there might be a due process issue under Brady v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). A just disposition of the case requires a fuller development of the events which transpired in the week between appellant's blow and Wilson's death, and the Government's knowledge of them. 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The record is remanded for a further hearing and consideration of the case in the light of such information as is uncovered. If information which comes to light on this remand makes a new trial appropriate, the District Court should order a new trial. If the District Court concludes that a new trial is not needed, the record will be returned for our further consideration. At that time we can consider such issues of law as are presented by the full record.
So ordered.