Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Charles McNEIL, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-08-28
Citations: 434 F.2d 502
Docket Number: No. 24263
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Charles McNEIL, Appellant.
Judges: Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and MacKINNON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 434
Pages: 502–515

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Charles McNEIL, Appellant.
No. 24263.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 18, 1970.
Decided Aug. 28, 1970.
Mrs. Barbara Allen Bowman, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., was on the response to the motion, for appellee. Mr. Edwin A. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and MacKINNON and ROBB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The District Court, after hearing, denied Saint Elizabeths Hospital's application to grant appellant a conditional release in an unexplicated order. The case is before us on appellant's motion for summary reversal.
It is elementary in this jurisdiction that, in order to provide a framework adequate for appellate review, decisions such as the one before us must be accompanied by findings of facts and conclusions of law. See Tatem v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 232, 275 F.2d 894, 896 (1960); Hough v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 195-196, 271 F.2d 458, 461-462 (1959). Moreover, it appeared upon oral argument that the court below did not have before it all of the evidence which the parties, at the present time at least, consider relevant to its decision.
We do not believe this case is an apt one for summary reversal; but neither do we believe that the present state of record is adequate to permit appellate review under the proper standards. Accordingly, we deny appellant's motion for summary reversal, but vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court for the taking of such additional evidence as the parties may see fit to introduce, and such further proceedings as may be appropriate. At the conclusion of the proceedings on remand, the District Court should file findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the applicable standards. See Bolton v. Harris, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 1, 395 F.2d 642 (1968); Lake v. Cameron, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 364 F.2d 657 (1966) (en banc); Hough v. United States, supra. On any remand hearing the opinion of a qualified psychologist is competent and admissible, Jenkins v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 307 F.2d 637 (1962) (era banc). This does not mean that the trier of facts is bound by such opinion. As we stated in Jenkins, "The weight to be given any expert opinion admitted in evidence by the judge is exclusively for the jury." 113 U.S.App.D.C. at 309, 307 F.2d at 646. Here the judge was the trier of facts and the same riile applied. His remarks could be interpreted as expressing only his opinion as to the weight of the psychologist's testimony. Since that testimony was admitted into evidence the court obviously recognized in the legal sense that the psychologist was competent to testify.
Vacated and remanded.
. McNeil was tried for the offense of taking indecent liberties with a minor child and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He has been at St. Elizabeths Hospital just over two years since his trial and now seeks release on condition that he, an alcoholic, refrain from ingesting alcohol and report daily to a clinic for the administration of antabuse. Antabuse is a drug that causes one to become ill if he drinks alcohol. Evidence at the hearing below was to the effect that if he refrained from drinking alcohol it was "unlikely" that his admitted propensity for such crimes would manifest itself. Whether the public should be subjected to the obvious hazards inherent in a release at large on such conditions is one of the vital questions for the trial court. At the hearing a psychiatrist testified:
THE COURT: Do you have an opinion [as?] to whether he has recovered his sanity?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And he has recovered it?
THE WITNESS: No, Sir. I think he has improved and partially recovered, I would say.
THE COURT: But he is still of unsound mind?
THE WITNESS: He is still suffering from the same illness?
THE COURT: That he was acquitted on?
THE WITNESS : Yes, sir.
Also, that if he were released:
I don't believe he would be dangerous, if he would adhere to the conditions stipulated.
Q What is his diagnosis, by the way, Doctor?
A Unspecified sexual deviation.
THE WITNESS: The prognosis for him ever being rid of his diagnosis is poor. The prognosis for not acting antisocially is very good, if he doesn't ingest alcohol.
. Appellant has in fact resided in Saint Elizabeths continuously since December of 1967, when he was committed to the hospital for an examination of his mental condition following his arrest.