Opinion ID: 299553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: factual background and waiver proceedings in juvenile court and district court

Text: The Offense 3 There is little dispute concerning the events which gave rise to appellant's prosecution. On May 7, 1968, four young men entered the Brinsfield Drug Store at 3939 South Capitol Street and proceeded to rob the owner and his employees. During the course of the robbery a policeman, Detective Daniel E. Keller, suddenly appeared on the scene. A man inside the store fired a shot at the Detective as he approached, and that man and appellant then forced Mr. Brinsfield to walk with them to the front of the store in an attempt to escape. As they began to flee, Mr. Sweitzer, an employee, struggled with the robber who had fired at Detective Keller, and in the course of the fight, Mr. Sweitzer was shot and fatally wounded. Appellant was later identified as the man who had fired the fatal shot. Appellant's Prior Juvenile Record 4 Appellant was born on July 8, 1950, and was first involved with the Juvenile Court on July 30, 1964, when he was charged with housebreaking. He was placed on probation for that offense on May 4, 1965, and remained on probation until March 15, 1967. During his probation, appellant was arrested for unauthorized use of a vehicle (September 22, 1965) and was fined $10. On November 29, 1967, appellant was again arrested, for driving without a permit. 5 The first complaint against appellant involving an offense like robbery charged that on March 19, 1968, he and two other men robbed a credit union at gunpoint, taking approximately $90 and some jewelry from an employee. The record shows that on March 25, 1968, appellant, again with two others, robbed a second credit union, this time taking about $40 in cash. On April 24, 1968, appellant's mother filed a complaint with the Juvenile Court that he was habitually beyond her control, in that he left home without permission, would not return until late at night, and refused to explain his absences or activities while away from home. Appellant was placed in the Receiving Home on April 24, but absconded on April 29, eight days before the robbery involved here. After his arrest on May 7, two additional charges of armed robbery were placed against appellant, one having occurred on May 1, and the other on May 3. Waiver Hearing in Juvenile Court 6 At the waiver hearing on July 1, 1968, counsel for appellant proposed several programs toward the objective of his rehabilitation. Mr. Edwin Bethia, a professional social worker affiliated with the Neighborhood Delinquent Youth Program, stated that he regarded appellant as an excellent candidate for the Youth Enterprise Program (W.H. 10). He based his conclusion on appellant's apparent leadership qualities and his desire for money. 7 Mr. Donald P. Bennett, the former Intake Officer of the Juvenile Court, testified. In his report of April 29, 1968, which was put in the record, Mr. Bennett had concluded that appellant can be helped in a juvenile setting since we have not exhausted our services, and since respondent shows a promise of rehabilitation, it is my recommendation that he be committed to the Department of Welfare. (W.H. 16). However, in his testimony at the waiver hearing, given after appellant's escape from the Receiving Home and his latest armed robberies, Mr. Bennett recommended that jurisdiction over appellant be waived: I think of him somewhat of a sort you cannot treat if he will not avail himself of treatment. There is a question of whether he will not leave if he is under less strict controls. Number two, on the basis of behavior patterns, I cannot really consider him a juvenile, but more of an adult. (W.H. 24.) 8 Dr. Barry A. Bukatman, a psychiatrist for the Offender Rehabilitation Project of the Legal Aid Agency, testified that appellant's chances for rehabilitation were very, very good because appellant had the capabilities to utilize group therapy, if his treatments were intensive, and in a group setting with boys of his own age, rather than an adult setting where he would be attracted to the in group. (W.H. 33). In addition, Dr. Bukatman filed an evaluation report dated June 24, 1968, wherein he stated, If [Walter Howard] is incarcerated and maintained solely in a punitive penal institution, it is quite likely that he will become more deeply involved in crime until he ultimately oversteps his abilities and either is incarcerated for life or killed. On the other hand, if Walter is placed in an institution or setting where his strengths and abilities can be fostered and encouraged, to the extent even that he is allowed to continue with his current plans (which are not unrealistic) of becoming a lawyer, he has the potential to become a useful and meaningful member of society. 9 Miss Donna Jane Knowles, a case worker for the Offender Rehabilitation Project, summarized the vocational and academic programs available at the juvenile facility at Laurel, Maryland for older, more hardened male delinquents, which had opened around May 15, 1968. The facility was designed for 150 occupants and was scheduled to be fully operable by September, 1968, with group and individual therapy programs conducted by three psychologists and a psychiatrist, as well as academic and vocational courses. Miss Knowles had visited Laurel and considered it a secure institution, even though seven juvenile residents had escaped since its opening. (Tr. 231.) 10 The Court subsequently heard testimony from appellant in his own behalf. On July 30, 1968, the Juvenile Court waived jurisdiction over appellant. Judge Ketcham stated in his opinion that appellant's alleged involvement in these new, most serious offenses indicates that rehabilitation within the presently available juvenile facilities is unlikely. 1 11 As it happened, July 30, 1968, was also the day this Court decided Kent v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 401 F.2d 408 (1968). Appellant's counsel moved on August 14 to reopen the waiver hearing based on his understanding of the Kent decision. On September 25, the Juvenile Court ordered the Legal Psychiatric Services to determine whether appellant was suitable for civil commitment on the ground of mental illness. The court stated that unless appellant is civilly committable    the case is waived. 12 On November 12, 1968, the waiver hearing was resumed in Juvenile Court. The Court referred to the report of Dr. Charles E. Ruch, staff psychiatrist with the Legal Psychiatric Services of the District of Columbia Public Health Service, which stated that appellant showed no signs of mental illness. Judge Ketcham also stated that he had visited the new Laurel facility in late July, and that he had seen no evidence of the type of treatment and rehabilitation programs recommended by Dr. Bukatman. The court reaffirmed its original decision waiving appellant to the District Court. District Court Proceedings 13 On October 20-23, 1969, the District Court heard evidence on appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of improper waiver of Juvenile Court jurisdiction. Dr. Markwell, a clinical psychologist, testified for appellant. He had interviewed appellant at the request of the Offender Rehabilitation Project, and given him psychological evaluation tests. He testified that appellant was a borderline psychotic (Tr. 22), requiring some kind of group experience where he interacted with other persons about his own age and    in a therapeutic situation,    and some kind of vocational training. (Tr. 26). 14 Dr. Markwell's conclusion was disputed by two witnesses called by the Government. Dr. Albert E. Marland, a court-appointed psychiatrist, testified that appellant was not psychotic in any way. (Tr. 36). He also disagreed with the conclusion of Dr. Eliot Blum, a psychologist at St. Elizabeths Hospital who had submitted a report to the Juvenile Court, that appellant was a sociopath. (Tr. 37-39). Dr. Marland reiterated that appellant showed no signs of any mental illness. (Tr. 38.) 15 Dr. Daniel A. Pugh, a psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths, also testified for the prosecution. He had been appellant's chief interviewer at St. Elizabeths and had participated in the staff conference of July 15, 1968, which concluded that appellant was not suffering from a mental illness. (Tr. 54). He also stated that during appellant's hospitalization there was never any evidence of any loss of contact with reality. (Tr. 56.) He did not believe that any essential behavior on appellant's part can be attributed to any psychiatric illness because there is no evidence that there has been any illness in Mr. Howard's case. 16 Mr. Bennett, the Intake Officer of the Juvenile Court, also testiifed in the District Court. He reiterated his reasons for recommending waiver of juvenile jurisdiction, including his view that appellant was a most sophisticated youngster apparently well trained and experienced in armed robbery and obtaining `fast' money, and that appellant represented a potential threat to the safety of the community. (Tr. 69-70.) 17 All of the Juvenile Court records were received into evidence by the District Court, and transcripts of the original and resumed waiver hearings were read into the record. The District Court upheld the Juvenile Court's waiver as appropriate and proper (Tr. 326), stating that appellant was not suffering from any mental illness, and there is no present indication of any mental illness. (Tr. 327).