Court Opinion

ID: 9444472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:01:57.354772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:53.011334
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion admirably sets out the legislative history of sections 4244-4248, inclusive, Title 18 U.S.C., and clearly demonstrates the need for such legislation. I fully agree that one charged with a federal offense who is mentally incompetent to stand trial may be held in custody for a reasonable time awaiting trial, and that such right should *388be liberally construed. However, when it appears with reasonable certainty that the defendant is permanently insane and that he will never be mentally competent to stand trial, constitutional power on the part of the Government is lacking to incarcerate the defendant for an indefinite period, likely the remainder of his life. Under such circumstances, it would appear that no further purpose exists for his detention to await a criminal trial which can never take place. The defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If because of his insanity he can never be tried, he will have no opportunity to be adjudged not guilty generally or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undoubtedly, in many cases the defendant found incompetent to stand trial would be able to establish that he was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and consequently that he is not a criminal at all. An insane person is an ill person.
After a judicial determination of permanent insanity the defendant is being held because of his insanity rather than to await trial for the crime charged. Section 4246, after providing for holding of defendant until he is competent to stand trial, then provides: “And if the court after hearing as provided in the preceding sections 4244 and 4245 shall determine that the conditions specified in the following section 4247 exist, the commitment shall be governed by section 4248 as herein provided.” Section 4247 pertains to holding of insane convicted defendants whose terms are about to expire. Section 4248 provides in part:
“Whenever a person shall be com- ' mitted pursuant to section 4247 of this title, his commitment shall run until the sanity or mental competency of the person shall be restored or until the mental condition of the person is so improved that if he be • released he will not endanger the safety of the officers, the property, .■ or .other interests of the United . rStat.es', or until suitable arrange-. ¡.ipaepts haye been made for'the cus-.. tody and care of the prisoner by the State of his residence, whichever event shall first occur.”
The section 4248 commitment appears to be bottomed upon insanity rather than criminality. If the defendant is to be held only to await trial, there is no necessity or purpose in the last sentence of section 4246 hereinabove quoted.
The decided cases on the issue in controversy here are cited and fairly discussed in the majority opinion. The Courts of Appeals of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held that the Government has no constitutional right to continue to hold an accused defendant who has not been convicted and who has been found to be permanently insane. Wells, by Gillig v. Attorney General, 10 Cir., 201 F.2d 556; Higgins v. United States, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 650. The opinions of Judges Duncan and Whittaker of the Western Division of Missouri, cited in the majority opinion, are to the same effect. The only contrary holdings are Judge Ridge’s opinions and the dissenting opinion of Judge Huxman in the Wells case.
• The Constitution of the United States has not delegated the care of the insane to the United States, nor prohibited such power to the States. Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution the duty and responsibility in connection with insane persons rest with the States.
I realize that this case presents a difficult situation and that as a practical matter much can be said in favor of the result arrived at by the majority. No bad motive on the part of the Government in retaining custody is shown. It may well be for the defendant’s best interest, as well as that of the public, that he remain in the Government hospital. However, as I am convinced that the United States has no jurisdiction over permanently insane persons for an indefinite period this conclusion can not be altered by practical considerations.
. I would reverse this case and remand, it with directions to release the defend-, ant from federal restrainW ísk ■