Court Opinion

ID: 9456267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:47:08.392763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:54.587920
License: Public Domain

B OREM AN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I would agree with the majority that leave to withdraw a plea of guilty before sentencing should normally be granted. It is well settled, however, that the granting of such leave is discretionary with the trial court, and the scope of review on appeal is limited to determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion. United States v. Guerini, 296 F.2d 83 (4 Cir.1961). I further agree with the majority that the district court should be sustained if McGirr’s abnormality, as reported by the doctors at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, was manifested only by his repeated criminal conduct. But, contrary to the majority view, my analysis of that report convinces me that it supports such a conclusion and that is my basis for dissatisfaction and disagreement. I cannot accept the holding that the district court abused its discretion.
Considered as a whole, as is proper, the report indicates that McGirr’s only legally cognizable manifestation of abnormality was his repeated criminal behavior. The report described McGirr as “bright,” “pleasant,” “cooperative,” “does not smoke nor show any particular mannerisms reflective of anxiety,” “oriented as to time and place,” and “facile and glib with words.” It further stated that “[H]is thoughts are at all times *850coherent without any evidence of bizarre thoughts or behavior,” and that, “[H]e shows no disorder in his memory or orientation.” On the other hand, the “objective basis” disclosed in the report, which the majority views as a sufficient manifestation of disease or defect to support an insanity plea, is wholly unpersuasive. My brothers point to the “Psychological Summary” portion of the report. Noting that the staff psychologist who interpreted the psychological tests had information beforehand of the nature and extent of McGirr’s criminal activities, I wonder whether the “Rorschach protocol” which was of “primary significance” in establishing a “comprehensible picture” of McGirr’s mental capacity would have resulted in a similar “picture” if the subject had been a law-abiding citizen. In other words, did the psychological tests themselves provide the psychologist with a basis for a diagnosis of possible mental disease thereby constituting a manifestation of abnormality within the meaning of the A.L.I. test? The language of the “Psychological Summary” indicates to me that a possible multiple personality was suggested to this psychologist, not by the psychological tests but by McGirr’s criminal behavior, and that this possibility was actually refuted by the test results; further, it was his opinion that despite the indications of a possible multiple personality (even if evidenced by partial test results), additional evidence showed that McGirr was not “a truly hysterical or neurotic patient but rather one of a modified character disorder.” I think it is clear that a “modified character disorder” is not an abnormality which was intended by the American Law Institute under its formulated test to exempt an individual from criminal responsibility. To the contrary, it would seem to be precisely the type of ease which the A.L.I. had in contemplation in excluding abnormalities “manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct.”
The majority also points to the “Medical Staff Conference (Diagnosis)” section of the report. I find no indication in this section whatsoever of any manifestation of a mental disease or defect other than repeated criminal activity. The statement contained therein that, “Psychologicals show what Dr. Bauer feels is a multiple personality * * *” is simply not what was reported in the “Psychological Summary” as discussed above. And while McGirr’s behavior during an interview is described as typifying “the personality life pattern of an antisocial personality,” this should not be considered an objective manifestation of a mental disease' or defect within the meaning of the A.L.I. test because it is clear that an “antisocial personality” is not, of necessity, such an abnormality. Phrases such as “antisocial personality” (“sociopath” and “psychopath” are similar) provide labels recognized in the profession as indicating particular behavioral patterns, but they are conclusory medical terms1 and, without more, are of dubious value to a court or jury which must assess the legal responsibility of the individual. To say that McGirr committed crimes because he was an “antisocial personality” is to utter little more than a tautology; further explanation is necessary. Without additional evidence, behavior which merely typifies an “antisocial personality” would not provide an objective manifestation of an abnormality to support a plea of insanity.
The majority implies that the district court committed error in undertaking to determine the merits of the proffered defense of insanity, going beyond the permissible threshold question of “frivolity.” See Gearhart v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 270, 272 F.2d 499 (1959). Alternatively, the majority indicates the possibility that the district judge committed error in that he “seemed to suggest that a jury trial on the issue was foreclosed by the fact that the guilty plea had been tendered and *851accepted.” (See footnote 3, majority opinion.) I cannot agree that the district judge undertook to determine Mc-Girr’s sanity nor do I think he felt that a jury trial was foreclosed by the plea.
In its opinion denying the motion, the lower court stated, “The report as a whole * * * shows that any inability to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law was not caused by any ‘mental disease or defect’ within the meaning of the American Law Institute test * * This statement clearly implies that the court believed an insanity defense to be “patently frivolous” in this case and that this conclusion was reached not because the district judge found McGirr to be criminally responsible but simply because he found no indication to the contrary in the report from St. Elizabeth’s. The following colloquy between defense counsel and the court at the sentencing hearing makes abundantly clear that the possibility of additional evidence casting new light upon Mc-Girr’s mental status was contemplated by the court:
“MR. ROGERS: Certainly, my client, notwithstanding the fact that the court has ruled on the issue of the plea with respect to insanity, feels and has insisted that I proceed with the possibility of getting him some medical treatment.
“The court has made a decision as to whether Mr. McGirr’s condition is a mental defect, but I think it would
“THE COURT: I have not decided that. That has to be decided, I suppose, by the jury in the bank robbery cases.”
Any claim that the district court concluded that a jury trial was foreclosed by the guilty plea is refuted by the very fact that a hearing was held on the defendant’s motion for leave to withdraw his plea; indeed, a hearing would not have been ordered had the court reached any such conclusion. Further, the court’s opinion denying the motion contains no indication that it thought the guilty plea would have such an effect.
At the sentencing hearing, the judge did make the following explanatory statement:
“I am not passing in any way here on any possible defense which he may have to any of the bank robbery cases on the grounds, in effect, that he cannot control his conduct, which is what he said.
“Now, whether that is due to a mental disease or defect within the meaning of the law applicable in this Circuit, or whether it is due to something else, is a matter which will have to be decided there. I do not think it has to be decided here, because it was certainly a matter which was washed out by the plea and by what was done after the plea. I think it would be a mistake to do it in this case.” (Emphasis added.)
Considered in light of the court’s reasoning in its opinion and the fact that a hearing was held at defendant’s request, this language does not indicate to me that the district judge felt that a jury trial was foreclosed by the guilty plea.
I conclude that the report from St. Elizabeth’s contains no indication of professional opinion that McGirr’s inability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law resulted from an abnormality which was manifested in any way other than by such inability itself, and that the district court properly so found. The report at most would support, but not compel, a conclusion that the testimony of the doctors from St. Elizabeth’s and/or further examination of the defendant at Phipps Clinic, both of which the defendant had requested the opportunity to provide, may have been helpful to the court. But it is to be emphasized that the district judge did not deny either of these requests; he merely declined to rule on them until he had an opportunity to study the report and, before he acted further in the matter, he was presented with a demand by the defendant, under threat of mandamus, for *852a ruling on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and for prompt sentencing if the motion were to be denied. At the sentencing hearing following this demand, McGirr renewed his request to withdraw the plea, but did not again ask that the doctors from St. Elizabeth’s be called or that his bond be reinstated so he could undergo further tests at Phipps Clinic. The district judge thereupon reached a decision on the basis of what was before him at the time, i. e., the report from St. Elizabeth’s.
Finding no abuse of discretion, I would affirm the decision of the district court.2

. See United States v. Chandler, 393 F.2d 920, 926, n. 17 (4 Cir. 1968).

. For reasons unnecessary to discuss here, I find no merit in the defendant’s third assignment of error concerning the delay in imposition of sentence.