Case Name: Oliver H. FOOKS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-07-12
Citations: 246 F.2d 629
Docket Number: Nos. 12998-13000
Parties: Oliver H. FOOKS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: Before Wilbur K. Miller, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 246
Pages: 629–641

Head Matter:
Oliver H. FOOKS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 12998-13000.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 26, 1956.
Decided July 12, 1956.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied March 28, 1957.
Statements in Relation to Petition for Rehearing En Banc June 13, 1957.
Mr. C. Frank Reif snyder (appointed by the District Court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Edward P. Troxell, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief for appellee. Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., at the time record was filed, also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Bastían and Burger, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these cases, after intermediate proceedings not necessary to be detailed here, the appellant was granted hearings before the three District Court Judges who had presided at three separate trials in which appellant had been convicted of (1) assault with a dangerous weapon; (2) assault with intent to commit rape; and (3) another assault with intent to commit rape. The hearings so conducted were under 18 U.S.C. § 4245, to determine appellant's competency at the time of his several trials.
After extensive testimony was taken, covering in all some eight trial days, in separate findings each of the three judges found that appellant was mentally competent to understand the charges against him and properly assist in his defense at the time he was tried, and that appellant was mentally competent wtien he was sentenced. Two of the District Judges specifically ruled that, even if the Government had the burden of establishing such competency beyond a reasonable doubt, as to which we now express no opinion, it had carried that burden; and it is fairly inferable that the third District Judge, who, by consent, heard the testimony with one of the other judges, did likewise.
We think the findings of the trial judges were clearly correct and the judgments appealed from are
Affirmed.
. By consent of the defendant and the Government, the District Judges who tried cases No. 12,998 and No. 12,999 heard the evidence while sitting together. The judge who tried case No. 18,000 conducted a separate hearing.