Opinion ID: 319775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: special finding and jury instruction.

Text: 16 The defense requested that the jury make a special finding on the issue of Greene's sanity. Concomitantly, the defense requested that the court instruct the jury that should they return a verdict of not guilty together with a special finding of insanity, the court would thereupon certify the result to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who could order the defendant confined to a mental hospital until cured. 5 Such a procedure, according to the defendant, would eliminate the dilemma in which federal juries are placed, i.e., choosing between finding the defendant guilty or finding him not guilty because insane, with the latter verdict resulting in total freedom. This 'gap,' caused by the fact that there is no commitment where a defendant is judged not guilty by reason of insanity, the defense notes, has been filled by the vast majority of the States and the District of Columbia. 6 These jurisdictions all provide for some form of commitment, either mandatory or discretionary, where there is a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. 17 Greene suggests that we plug the federal gap through application of 24 U.S.C. 211, which provides: 18 'If any person, charged with crime, be found, in the court before which he is so charged, to be an insane person, such court shall certify the same to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who may order such person to be confined in Saint Elizabeths Hospital (in the District of Columbia) . . ..' 19 According to the defendant, this statute enables any federal court, including those outside the District of Columbia, to commit to St. Elizabeths a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity. Through the use of a special interrogatory, the determination of insanity would be made 7 which could trigger the applicability of the statute. 20 On its face, the statute would appear to apply to all federal courts regardless of location. The issue is whether, in the light of legislative history, judicial authority, and dispute in the subject area itself, we should, through judicial mandate, give the statute the broad application sought. 21 The legislative history of 24 U.S.C. 211 indicates that it was originally intended to be limited to courts in the District of Columbia. When first enacted in 1857, 211 was part of 'An Act Supplementary to 'An Act to Organize an Institution for the Insane of the Army and Navy, and of the District of Columbia, in said District, 11 Stat. 157-158 (1857). In 1881, the Attorney General expressly stated that the statute was limited in application to the District of Columbia: 22 'I have no doubt that the generality of this language is, by the force of the title and the accompanying provisions, limited to courts in this (D.C.) District. Sufficient reasons will suggest themselves to every mind why Congress should make such provision for the insane of the Army and Navy and of this District, as States are expected to make for the insane person residing within their borders; but no reason can be suggested why an insane resident of Texas should be brought and maintained here.' 17 Op.Att'y Gen. 211 (1881). 23 The weight of judicial authority, likewise, has not found 211 applicable to federal courts outside the District of Columbia. In Sauer v. United States, 241 F.2d 640, 650-652 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 940, 77 S.Ct. 1405, 1 L.Ed.2d 1539, the Ninth Circuit, in determining the proper standard for insanity, noted: 24 'The choice today in this jurisdiction is not between confinement and commitment, but rather between confinement and freedom . . .. If the jury acquitted appellant on the ground of insanity, there is no provision in the United States Code which would authorize the Government to have appellant committed. That a regrettable void exists in the law today in this respect is readily apparent.' 25 The court in Sauer specifically noted that 24 U.S.C. 211 was inapplicable: 26 '(A) careful reading of (211) reveals its inapplicability to such situations, for it pertains solely to persons found to be insane, a finding which . . . cannot be made within existing federal criminal procedure. Moreover . . . the section has been administratively construed as applicable only to persons charged with crime before District of Columbia courts.' 241 F.2d at 651-652 n. 32. 27 Instructions similar to that sought by the defendant in the present case have been denied by the Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in Pope v. United States, 298 F.2d 507, 508-509 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 941, 85 S.Ct. 1776, 14 L.Ed.2d 704 (1965); White v. United States, 387 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1967); Pope v. United States, 372 F.2d 710, 731-732 (8th Cir. 1967), vacated for resentencing, 392 U.S. 651, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1968), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 949, 91 S.Ct. 953, 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1971); United States v. Borum, 464 F.2d 896, 900-901 (10th Cir. (1972). See also United States v. McCracken, 488 F.2d 406, 416-417 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680, 686-687 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606, 625-626 (2d Cir. 1966). 8 28 The only judicial authority suggesting that 211 might be applicable outside the District of Columbia is found in dicta in Pollard v. United States, 282 F.2d 450, 464 (6th Cir. 1960). No case has been found in which the denial of an instruction like that sought in the present case has been held to be reversible error. 29 Members of Congress apparently have also assumed that 24 U.S.C. 211 does not provide authority for federal commitment where there is a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. In recent years, a number of bills differing in scope and procedure have been introduced to provide for such a procedure. S.979, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969); S.1007, S.2740, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967); S.3689, S.3753, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). There has been questioning of the constitutionality of such a commitment by a federal court. 9 30 Finally, it should be noted that commentators have disagreed as to the merits of commitment after acquittal by reason of insanity. 10 31 Given this background, we are of the opinion that any change in the generally accepted interpretation of 211 should come from Congress, which thus far has not chosen to act notwithstanding the background with which the legislative body is presumably acquainted. 32 We do not mean to suggest by this decision that the 'gap' existing in the federal court procedures should not be plugged. We merely decline to engage in judicial legislation. 11 33 Our declination also extends to the perilous course of speculating as to whether a jury verdict was motivated or actuated by a belief entertained by members of that jury which belief, of necessity, was based upon a privately entertained concept and not upon anything brought out in evidence during the course of a trial, nor adverted to in instructions. 34 Judge Stevens postulates his dissenting opinion on the premise that the jury probably assumed that a not guilty verdict would release the defendant upon society and that one of the court's instructions by negative implication 'may well have given' the jury the 'impression' that it would be appropriate for them to be concerned about the matter. It appears to us that it could be equally forcefully argued that the jurors, frequently being drawn from areas other than the metropolitan areas where the federal courts sit and thereby being better acquainted with state court procedures, would assume that there would be mental hospital commitment following a finding of acquittal where the defense of insanity had been raised. 35 Either approach strikes us as pure and simple (and impermissible) speculation. One of the most elusive quests in which trial lawyers indulge from time to time is to determine which facts or factors prompted a particular jury verdict. In some instances the judiciary may presume that the likelihood of prejudice from certain factors is so great that reversal is required, for example, if the prosecutor had argued to the jury that the defendant must be guilty because he did not take the witness stand. 36 Here we have no foundation on which to erect the presumption of prejudice other than that of speculation. Yet we are called upon by the dissent to find plain error, requiring a reversal, in the failure of the court to suggest somehow to the jury that perhaps the defendant might be confined if he was acquitted. 37 The observations of Judge Goldberg in a comparable case appear to be particularly apt. 38 'Imagination in re-living the trial is here not sufficient, but must be accompanied by speculation as to what would have appeared had the claim of error been considered. Speculation wastes time and bears ephemeral fruit. For this reason this Court has held that there is no 'plain error' where, irrespective of the substantiality of the claimed error, the record does not present the question in enough detail . . .. The present case classically illustrates the soundness of this rule. Whether or not there was error was not visible because all of the circumstances of the arrest were not before the court. That which is not visible cannot be 'plain.' We are not equipped for divination.' Sykes v. United States, 373 F.2d 607, 612-613 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 977, 87 S.Ct. 1172, 18 L.Ed.2d 138 (1967). 39 Even if we put aside any concept that juries do conscientiously endeavor to decide cases on the basis of the law and the evidence and not on factors not presented to them, there is nothing in the record which made the status of the defendant after acquittal visible to the jury. The district court in its instructions told the jury that they should not give any consideration to the matter of punishment 'in determining the guilt or innocence of this defendant.' Since reference was made both to guilt and innocence, it would not seem unreasonable to assume, if we were to speculate on what the jury was thinking, which opportunity we continue to resist, that 'the matter of punishment,' even though it by definition would not include commitment for mental illness, would at least be interpretable by the jury so as to include lack of punishment as well as imposition of punishment. 40 We also note the court's instruction, 'if the evidence in the case leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was sane at the time of the alleged offense, you will find him not guilty, even though it may appear that he was sane at earlier or later times.' The instruction given appears to be inconsistent with the instruction proposed in the dissenting opinion to the effect that if the defendant was found to be insane at the time of the offense it would be presumed that the insanity continued. 12 It appears to us that a trial court would indeed be engaging in unwarranted judicial activism to attempt to instruct the jury as to the status of the federal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity when there is such a complete lack of guidelines to determine just what the disposition would be. 41 We have considered the present phase of the issue in the context of the plain error rule. Reversal for 'plain error' requires 'error both obvious and substantial,' or 'serious and manifest errors'; and such reversal should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances, 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure 856 (1969). In that background, we are unpersuaded that the failure of the district judge to embark on his own motion in instruction in the uncharted area of the law here involved should be the basis of reversing the conviction. We do not mean to suggest that under appropriate circumstances the duty may not arise for the trial judge to give instructions on his own motion to assure a fair trial. We merely are holding that the circumstances were not appropriate in the present case. 42 While we do not decide the question, we are of the opinion that it is arguable whether it would have been erroneous for the district court to have declined to have given an instruction patterned on the suggestions of the dissenting opinion had such a request been made. 43 One learned commentator on the subject has stated that 'only in the District of Columbia, however, is the trial judge required to eliminate the ambiguity and tell the jury that there will be a commitment and release process administered by court and mental hospital. In a small number of other jurisdictions, the trial judge may advise the jury of these details if he chooses to do so.' Abraham S. Goldstein, The Insanity Defense 144 (1967). The District of Columbia rule, of course, is predicated on the code of that District as to which the entire panel is in agreement on its inapplicability here. 44 Professor Goldstein also observes that 'the more common view is that it is improper to give the instruction because it would district the jury from the insanity issue and would invite compromise verdicts.' Id. at 261 n. 2. 45 We also note the reference in the dissenting opinion to the opinion of then Judge Blackmun in Pope v. United States, 372 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1967). As a final word on the present issue, it appears appropriate to complete the quotation from that case: 46 'In any event, we need not attempt to pass upon the scope and application of 211. We merely hold that the court's refusal to instruct about hospitalization was not error and that justice does not require the specifics, questionable at best, which the defense demanded.' Id. at 732. 47