Court Opinion

ID: 9454304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:42:39.336387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:03.873135
License: Public Domain

BURGER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in vacating of all orders and dissenting as to all else):
Since the Court now vacates the orders to which my dissent of November 18, 1968 was addressed, no more need be said as to the unavailability of mandamus in this case nor as to the propriety of commanding the Superintendent *704of St. Elizabeths Hospital by any judicial process as to how he should reach his medical diagnostic conclusions. My concurrence in the result reached today is of course predicated upon my previously expressed view that the orders now vacated should not have been entered in the first instance. I have placed in an appendix to this opinion the prior orders which are now vacated.
The majority statement, even though totally dicta, expresses views as to significant legal problems which I cannot join. As with the previous actions in this case my disagreement is one of a threshold nature. I cannot perceive any valid legal predicate upon which the majority can now rely. Not the least of the deficiencies is the fact that there is no longer a “case or controversy” before this Court. Indeed, both in tenor and substance the majority’s discussion is purely advisory and hortatory. It does not resolve but merely purports to east “illumination” on the issues; St. Elizabeths is advised only of the Court’s “assumption” that it will preserve the tape recordings; neither of the parties is being ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. As I have noted elsewhere, St. Elizabeths’ dutiful compliance with the Court’s prior orders, of which the majority seems cognizant, moots whatever issues might otherwise have existed. So far as any judicial power is concerned, St. Elizabeths Hospital is free to do what it wishes with its tape recordings.
Regardless of the “jurisdictional” vestiges which might be thought to have survived the “interim” orders, today’s expressions of the majority demonstrate the infirmities of entering stop-gap orders without legal foundation. There was no emergency on October 17, 1968 which required immediate action; there was no claim or likelihood of irreparable injury; in fact, the traditional prerequisites warranting' accelerated judicial action and extraordinary relief have been conspicuously absent throughout this litigation.1 The Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital is in a curiously ambiguous posture. Having complied with hasty and unwarranted judicial action which had the color of validity, the Superintendent is now in effect being thanked for his compliance and forbearance, and informed of this Court’s after-the-fact perplexity with the underlying legal issues.
The “puzzlement” expressed by the majority in its Note 9 is self inflicted and can be readily dispelled by reference to the facts of the case.
It is correct that ordinarily rejection of mandamus does not retrospectively affect interlocutory mandates, but when the interim orders are vacated by the same judges who entered them because they now recognize that mandamus is neither available nor appropriate, then I submit that the nullity of those interim orders is firmly established. To argue, as the majority does, that vacating the orders does not affect their original validity is no more than acknowledging the human impossibility of “unringing the bell.”
The methodology of the extraordinary course of judicial action in this case— and now retracted by the majority— should be noted since it could well help us avoid such a situation in the future. Without any decision on the merits, the majority entered a series of ill-advised orders on assumptions now acknowledged to have been without validity. Especially significant is the fact that three of the five orders operated on someone never made a party to the proceeding. Moreover, it can hardly be thought that the interim orders directed against St. Elizabeths Hospital were intended to preserve the status quo because by ordering an affirmative act they changed that status; three of the orders cannot *705be justified as intended to preserve jurisdiction because there could be no mandamus jurisdiction of a non-party.
Unlike the majority, I think it inappropriate at this time to engage in an extended discussion of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and their applicability to psychiatric examinations; no issues and no case are before us. Although this point was raised in the original pleadings, the disposition of this case renders it unnecessary to reach or decide those questions. The majority’s present discussion seems all the more unnecessary in view of its expressed aversion to decide admittedly novel and important legal issues in the face of a virtually barren factual matrix and without the benefit of any briefing or argument; consequently, such discussion is plainly dicta and in no sense authoritative. To the extent of the intimations that the Fifth Amendment may require the presence of counsel at pretrial psychiatric examinations and Staff Conferences I must vigorously disagree. Moreover, I see no theoretical or practical justification apart from the Fifth Amendment for permitting counsel to attend these pretrial encounters.2 My previously expressed views on these matters suffice for present purposes, and I will attach them in the appendix to this statement.
APPENDIX
United States Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 21,974. September Term, 1967
Rudolph N. Thornton, Petitioner v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran, Respondent.
Grand Jury #859-68
[Filed July 9, 1968]
Before: Bazelon, Chief Judge, Burger and Robinson, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
It appearing to the Court that further consideration of petitioner’s mandamus petition will be required, and that petitioner has already been committed to Saint Elizabeths Hospital for over sixty days, it is
Ordered by the Court, sua sponte, that Saint Elizabeths Hospital hold its staff conference concerning petitioner without awaiting the disposition of his petitioner, and that the Hospital record the.conference on audio tape, such recording to be sealed and kept in the sole custody of the Hospital until further order of this Court.
Circuit Judge BURGER did not participate in the foregoing order.
*706United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 21,974 September Term, 1967
Rudolph N. Thornton, v. Honorable Howard F. Petitioner, Corcoran, Respondent.
Grand Jury No. 859-68
[Filed July 9, 1968]
Before: Bazelon, Judges, in Chambers. Chief Judge; BURGER and Robinson, Circuit
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
It appearing to the Court that petitioner has requested relief which may affect certain procedures at Saint Elizabeths Hospital, the Court, sm sponte, invites the hospital to submit, as amicus curiae, on or before July 18, 1968, a brief setting forth its views on the desirability and feasibility of (1) permitting defense counsel and independent psychiatrists to be present at staff conferences which determine the Hospital’s recommendations concerning competence to stand trial and mental condition at the time of the alleged offense; (2) permitting transcription, by audio or video tape, of staff conferences for use by defense counsel and independent psychiatrists not present at such conferences-; and (3) establishing any other procedures for assuring that defense counsel are able to effectively cross-examine Hospital personnel at trial concerning their participation in the staff conferences.
The Court, sua sponte, also invites William H. Allen, Esquire, Chairman of the Committee to Seek Legislation as a Result of the Findings of the Standing Committee on “Problems Connected with Mental Examination of the Accused in Criminal Cases Before Trial” to submit, as amicus curiae, on or before July 22, 1968, a brief setting forth his views on the above matters. The requirement that the aforesaid briefs be' printed is waived.
Circuit Judge BURGER did not participate in the foregoing order.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 21,974 September Term, 1967
Rudolph N. Thornton, Petitioner, v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Respondent.
Grand Jury Term 859-68
[Filed July 26, 1968]
Before: Bazelon, Chief Judge, Burger and Robinson, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
*707ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the motion on behalf of St. Elizabeths Hospital for relief from the requirements of the order of this Court of July 9, 1968, and for permission to return appellant to his pre-trial status and of petitioner’s opposition thereto, it is
Ordered by the Court that the aforesaid motion on behalf of St. Elizabeth's Hospital is denied, and it is
Further ordered by the Court that St. Elizabeth’s Hospital shall comply forthwith with this Court’s order of July 9, 1968.
Circuit Judge BURGER desires to record his understanding that this order is not intended and is not to be construed as implying any requirement that a staff conference be held by the staff of Saint Elizabeths Hospital, but only that, when and if a conference is held, it is to be recorded subject to further order of the Court as to what use, if any, may be made of such recordings.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 21,974 September Term, 1968
Rudolph N. Thornton, v. Petitioner, Honorable Howard F. Corcoran, Respondent.
(Grand Jury No. 859-68)
(Criminal No. 884-68)
[Filed Sept. 30, 1968]
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Burger and Robinson, Circuit Judges, in Chambers-
MEMORANDUM ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Following his indictment for rape, Rudolph N. Thornton was committed to Saint Elizabeths Hospital for a mental examination. During the period of that 60-day commitment, he petitioned this Court in May 1968 for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge in his case to issue an order permitting his counsel and an independent psychiatrist to attend the staff conference that would be held before the hospital filed its report with the District Court. The respondent opposed the petition, reporting to this Court that the “staff conference has been postponed until resolution of petitioner’s present challenge.”
Since we concluded that “further consideration of petitioner’s mandamus petition will be required,” and since we did not wish to unnecessarily delay the examination process, this Court entered an order on July 9 directing that
Saint Elizabeths Hospital hold its staff conference concerning petitioner without awaiting the disposition of his petition, and that the Hospital record the conference on audio tape to be sealed and kept in the sole custody of the Hospital until further order of this Court.
*708In a separate order the same day we invited the hospital to submit an amicus curiae brief stating its views on the desirability of establishing procedures to assure the ability of defense counsel to adequately cross-examine hospital personnel at trial, either by permitting the attendance of counsel at staff conferences, by transcribing staff conferences, or by other devices.
The Hospital then filed a motion requesting elimination of the requirements of the July 9' order* “direct [ing] the Hospital to conduct a staff conference concerning appellant and to record such conference on audio tape.” The Hospital argued that in view of “the importance of the action requested by [Thornton] as far as the operation and management of Saint Elizabeths is concerned, the hospital seeks * * * to defer conducting any staff conference until a final decision is reached. * * *”
A week later the hospital submitted its amicus curiae brief, which stated in reference to its motion for relief that “the court is assured that if said motion is denied, a conference, in full compliance with the July 9 order of this court, will be held prior to the expiration of the period of petitioner’s authorized commitment to the hospital.”
This Court denied the Hospital’s motion on July 26. Subsequently, the Hospital, without holding a staff conference, certified to the District Court that Mr. Thornton was competent to stand trial. In view of the Hospital’s previous representations and the language of the order of July 9, we had thought it plain that a staff conference was to be held, and preserved on tape pending our final disposition of the petition for mandamus.
It now appears that Mr. Thornton has been returned to the District Court, found competent to stand trial, and released on recognizance pending trial. Since the staff conference contemplated by our order of July 9 has not been held, we at this time enlist the assistance of the district judge to take whatever steps are necessary to rectify whatever misunderstanding occurred. Since Saint Elizabeths Hospital advised this court at the time of its request that the staff conference be postponed until a final decision had been reached on the petition for mandamus that “postponement of the staff conference would not affect the verity of the conclusions to be reached,” we are confident that the situation can be promptly and adequately rectified.
It is so ordered.
Circuit Judge BURGER did not participate in the foregoing order.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 21,974 September Term, 1968
Rudolph N. Thornton, Petitioner, v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran, Respondent.
Grand Jury 859-68
(Criminal 884-68)
[Filed Oct. 17, 1968]
Before: Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Burger and Robinson, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
*709ORDER
PER CURIAM.
In the above-entitled case, this Court on September 20, 1968, filed a memorandum order designed to avoid delay, while the petition for writ of mandamus was pending decision in the proceedings in petitioner’s criminal case. As the memorandum order stated, this Court was “confident that the situation can be promptly and adequately rectified” in the District Court. This Court having now been informed that further steps have not been promptly taken to rectify the misunderstanding which has occurred, resulting in a failure to hold the staff conference which Saint Elizabeths Hospital assured this Court would be held if its motion for relief from the July 9, 1968, order of this Court were denied, it is
Ordered by the Court, sua, sponte, in the interest of expediting the proceedings, that the aforesaid memorandum order of September 20, 1968, be modified to direct the District Court (1) to proceed forthwith and without any further delay whatsoever to cause the petitioner to be placed in the same position he was in prior to the certification by the hospital authorities to the District Court that he was competent to stand trial, and (2) to direct that the hospital proceed forthwith in accordance with the representation contained in its amicus curiae brief, which this Court relied upon, to accord to petitioner a staff conference, with the incidents directed in this Court’s order of July 9, 1968. This order does not contemplate the further commitment of petitioner to Saint Elizabeths Hospital except for whatever minimum period is required to conduct the staff conference.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue forthwith a certified copy of this order to the District Court.
Circuit Judge BURGER did not participate in the foregoing order.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
No. 21,974 September Term, 1968
Rudolph N. Thornton, Petitioner v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran, Respondent
[Filed Nov. 18, 1968]

. Assuming arguendo that the Court did have jurisdiction, it is clear that no emergency situation existed requiring a hasty judicial response; the interim order entered September 20, 1968 was in response to a supplemental memorandum filed August 20, 1968 which contained no hint of an emergency.

. See p. 711, infra, dissent to order filed October 17,1968 (Appendix).