Opinion ID: 1541042
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Screening and Compromise

Text: The screening and compromise functions of the prosecutor are essentially provided for by the present statutory system, even without intervention by a public prosecutor. When a private party files a petition for involuntary hospitalization of another, that petition is first considered by the Commission, which was established `in recognition of the fact that the assistance of unbiased experts was essential to assist the courts in dealing with insanity cases.' Lake v. Cameron, supra at 269, 364 F.2d at 662, quoting from Demarcos v. Overholser, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 131, 132, 137 F.2d 698, 699, cert. denied, 320 U.S. 785, 64 S.Ct. 157, 88 L.Ed. 472 (1943). [13] The Commission then examines the person alleged to be mentally ill and hold[s] a hearing, at which the respondent is entitled to counsel and all relevant evidence is admissible. D.C.Code 1973, §§ 21-542(a), -543; Super.Ct.Ment. H.R. 3. [I]f the Commission finds . . that the person . . . is not mentally ill or if mentally ill, is not mentally ill to the extent that he is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the Commission shall immediately order his release. D.C.Code 1973, § 21-544. If, however, the Commission finds mental illness and dangerousness, it must issue a written report to the Superior Court with findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations for disposition. Id. ; Super.Ct. Ment.H.R. 3(b). [14] The court then sets the matter for hearing. D.C.Code 1973, § 21-545. It is apparent that the Commission, as a body of experts, provides the screening function normally associated with prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, the fact that the Commission initially dismissed the petition for appellant Rubain's hospitalization, based on his agreement to undergo voluntary treatment, is evidence that that the Commission can and does facilitate compromise dispositions.