Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don WADE, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-05-11
Citations: 489 F.2d 258
Docket Number: No. 71-2316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don WADE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 489
Pages: 258–260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don WADE, Appellant.
No. 71-2316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 11, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1973.
Choy, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
Jonathan E. Johnson (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
William John Rathje, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Here we revisit Wade v. United States, 426 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1970). Therein, we changed our definition of mental responsibility in criminal cases.
Now we are mainly concerned with the trial court's compelling the defendant to submit to examination by court-appointed psychiatrists on the pain of losing the right to present a defense of insanity. The order appointing psy chiatrists and ordering examination to determine both competence to stand trial and sanity at the time of the offense was made under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 4244. It is now the law of this circuit that § 4244 does not authorize such an order. United States v. Malcolm, 475 F.2d 420 (9th Cir. 1973). The court still has the authority, as part of the inherent power of the court, to order such an examination. On the facts of this case, we find that the order did not impermissibly infringe Wade's constitutional rights, and the court did not abuse its discretion. See also, United States v. Handy, 454 F.2d 885 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 409 U.S. 846, 93 S.Ct. 49, 34 L.Ed. 2d 86 (1972).
Appellant cannot challenge the validity of the district court's stated sanction for not submitting to an examination by court-appointed psychiatrists, since he complied with the order compelling examination. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83, n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1969). We cannot, at this time, decide whether an order prohibiting all evidence on insanity at the time that the offense was committed, not just expert testimony, is impermissibly broad.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.