Court Opinion

ID: 9456455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:53:28.342062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:59.083088
License: Public Domain

SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I fully embrace the majority’s view that the trial judge erred in denying defense counsel’s section 3006A(e) motion for the appointment of an independent psychiatrist to assist counsel in preparing the insanity defense and to inquire into defendant’s competency to stand trial. I readily associate myself with this portion of the court’s opinion. But the majority concludes that Taylor is entitled to a retrial only if a new psychiatric examination indicates that a substantial question is present as to Taylor’s sanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. From this disposition I am compelled to dissent, being of the view that Taylor is entitled unconditionally to a new trial on the present record; there is no warrant for the trial court to filter the *380merits of the defense in advance of trial.
Moreover, contrary to the majority’s decision, I think a new trial is also mandated by the judge’s error in determining that Taylor was competent to stand trial. Either of the errors committed by the trial judge, standing alone, would be sufficient to require a new trial in this case.
I. COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
The majority holds that the competency determination made prior to the first and second trial was sufficient. I cannot agree that either the first trial judge or the second trial judge, who relied exclusively on the prior determination, had an adequate basis intelligently to evaluate Taylor’s competency to stand trial.
A. Competency Determination at the First Trial
The institutional psychiatrists’ interview with Taylor was too cursory to support a finding of competency to stand trial. It is an elementary principle that “the value of a psychiatrist’s testimony depends largely upon his opportunities for observation and the facts he observes.” Rollerson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 343 F.2d 269, 270 (1964). I agree with my brethren that the question of criminal responsibility is ordinarily more complex than the issue of competency to stand trial. However, it does not follow that a ten-minute, superficial interview is sufficient to determine even competency, especially in the face of the doubt on this point explicitly articulated by counsel in obvious good faith. While it is true as a general matter that there is “no set period required for a mental examination,” Wynder v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 186, 352 F.2d 662, 663 (1965), I have been unable to find a case sustaining a competency determination as extraordinarily truncated as the one now before us. Examinations more extensive than this one have been disapproved. Bush v. McCollum, 231 F.Supp. 560, 563-564 (N.D.Tex.1964), aff’d, 344 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1965) (40 minutes).1
The majority concedes that Taylor’s belligerence at his psychiatric examination may itself be a “symptom of mental disorder” and raised a question as to Taylor’s sanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense that was inadequately resolved in the ten-minute interview. But Taylor’s state of mind at the abbreviated examination prior to trial was clearly even more relevant to his competency to stand trial. His erratic behavior should have prompted an extended psychiatric investigation as to his competency rather than providing the basis for terminating any further inquiry.
Nor was the information supplied the judge by the psychiatrists sufficient to allow him to make an independent judgment on the competency issue. The cases make it abundantly clear that it is for the fact finder to ascertain the mental condition of the accused; the issue may not be left to the mere conclusions of the experts. This principle applies with equal force to the judge’s determination of competency, Holloway v. United States, 119 US.App.D.C. 396, 343 F.2d 265 (1964),2 and the jury’s *381decision on criminal responsibility, Rollerson v. United States, supra 343 F.2d at 274. Here the psychiatric report submitted to the court merely summarized the events at the brief interview without even referring to the defendant’s extensive psychiatric history, and quickly concluded that Taylor was competent to stand trial and. sane at the time of the alleged offense. The psychiatrists seem to have treated Taylor’s recollection of’ the attack of October 12, 1968, as indicative of competency to stand trial. Although absence of a memory deficit as to that episode may be relevant to the competency issue, such a finding hardly settles defendant’s capacity to communicate with his lawyer and understand the proceedings against him.
The psychiatrists’ conclusion was accepted without question despite their own admission that “the interview was quite brief” and their disclaimer that “we do not pretend to offer a complete evaluation * * Just as the majority concludes that the report contained within itself the seeds of its own dubiety on the question of criminal responsibility, so too did the report patently reveal its inadequacy on the issue of defendant’s competency to stand trial.
The majority’s conclusion that Taylor’s competency was adequately determined rests partially on the assertion that “the real issue here” is not competency to stand trial, but denial of a sufficient opportunity to develop a defense of lack of criminal responsibility. But the majority concedes that “the motions to the trial court, as well as the arguments on appeal, are couched primarily in language suggesting a question of Taylor’s competence to stand trial.” I would add that counsel specifically requested a psychiatric examination of defendant’s competency and cited section 4244 which is directed exclusively to the competency of the defendant to stand trial. The question of Taylor’s competency is squarely before us, and this court is not justified in displacing that issue and substituting its judgment for that of counsel as to whether competency is a “real issue.”
The majority’s assertion that competency is not “the real issue” is bolstered with the statement that “neither the facts alleged in the pretrial motions nor the defendant’s conduct gave any indication that he might be incompetent to ..stand trial.” (Emphasis added.) This seems to be directly contradicted by the majority’s later conclusion that as to criminal responsibility those same motions were
replete with factual allegations easting serious doubt on Taylor’s responsibility for his conduct. Both motions recited his extensive history of mental disturbance, his record of impulsive behavior, his own desire for treatment, and previous expert medical opinion to the effect that he was “psychotic” and lacked sufficient internal controls over his conduct.
I have no doubt that the majority is correct in stating that criminal responsibility and competence to stand trial are very different concepts governed by different medical and legal standards. But that fact does not explain why the factors set forth in the motions quoted above do not give “any indication that [Taylor] might be incompetent to stand trial.” Surely defense counsel’s expressed concern over his client’s competency and his motion for a psychiatric investigation cannot be said to be frivolous, and should not have been disregarded.
B. Competency Determination at the Second Trial
Second, and to my mind even more important than the erroneous determination of Taylor’s competency at the first trial, was the denial of a new examination as to his competency at the second trial six months later.
*382The majority maintains that there was no need for a subsequent examination of defendant’s competency at his second trial, citing Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1969), for the proposition that “where an examination has been conducted so recently as to furnish a basis for present competence, there is ordinarily no reason to order another.” In Hall, however, the examination had been conducted only one month before the issue was again raised; in the instant case more than six months elapsed between the original examination and the second trial. Section 4244 deals with a class of potentially unbalanced defendants whose condition can fluctuate widely — from aggravation to remission' — over relatively short time spans. The question of Taylor’s competency at his second trial was hardly foreclosed by the determination made six months earlier. Even if it is assumed that the determination of competency before the first trial was unexceptionable, the significant period of time that intervened created a separate question of capacity to participate in the second trial. Counsel’s new request for competency determination should have been granted.
Directly in point is Meador v. United States, 332 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1964). The defendant in that case was examined (for one hour) and a report filed. Then after a hearing in which the examining psychiatrist testified that Meador was competent, findings to that effect were made. Some five months after the original examination and three-and-a-half months after the hearing a motion for a new examination was addressed to a second judge. Relying on what had gone before, the judge denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed. Recognizing that an “examination, report, testimony or finding” can be “so recent and so persuasive that a renewal of such a motion could be said to be frivolous,” 332 F.2d at 938, n. 5, the court found the time lag in that case too great.
Moreover, the second district judge was aware of the fact that Taylor’s first trial had aborted when he attacked one of the witnesses with a courtroom chair. This bizarre behavior, in itself, should have aroused suspicion about Taylor’s present condition. When combined with the inadequacy of the initial determination of Taylor’s competency, a new psychiatric inquiry was imperatively called for before proceeding to trial.
C. The Proper Remedy
The error of the second trial judge in proceeding to trial requires that the judgment of conviction be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial if, after an inquiry into his competency, defendant is found able to stand trial.
When competency has been erroneously determined before trial, the error has sometimes been thought to be eor-rectible in a nunc pro tunc hearing, in which the validity of the former trial is retrospectively ascertained. Such a procedure would be inappropriate in this case.3 In Dusky v. United States, 362 *383U.S. 402, 403, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960), the Supreme Court held that,
In view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony in this case and the resulting difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner’s competency as of more than a year ago, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction, and remand the case to the District Court for a new hearing to ascertain petitioner’s present competency to stand trial, and for a new trial if petitioner is found competent.
Thus the Court rejected the Government’s express prayer for a nunc pro tunc hearing.4 In Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), the Court adhered to this course, emphasizing the “need for con-' current determination.” 383 U.S. at 387, 86 S.Ct. 836.5 This court acknowledged a new trial as “the proper remedy” in Clonch v. Boles, 419 F.2d 393, 394 (4th Cir. 1969).
Clearly “the difficulties of retrospective determination in Dusky are compounded [when there has been] no mental examination.” Holloway v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 343 F.2d 265, 267 (1964). Compare Wear v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 325, 218 F.2d 24, 27 n. 11 (1954), with Gunther v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 215 F.2d 493, 497 (1954). See also Heard v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 390 F.2d 866 (1968); Blunt v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 389 F.2d 545, 549 (1967); United States v. Kendrick, 311 F.2d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 1964). Here, there was no examination for capacity to participate in the trial that resulted in Taylor’s conviction, (Part I B, above), and there was no adequate examination even before that date (Part I A, above). Thus there are no . sufficient, contemporaneously made medical records upon which a nunc pro tunc determination could be based.
II. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
I fully agree with the majority that the trial judge committed error in denying counsel’s motion under § 3006A(e) for the appointment of a disinterested psychiatrist to assist in the preparation of an insanity defense.6 Since authori*384zation was refused, court-appointed counsel was forced to trial without opportunity to make adequate exploration of the potential for an insanity defense. It is altogether possible that a meritorious defense was blocked. I disagree, however, with the majority’s uniquely fashioned remedy. It is ill conceived, and a new trial should be awarded unconditionally.
The majority remands to the District Court with directions to appoint an independent psychiatrist pursuant to § 3006A(e) to examine the defendant. The judge is told to grant a new trial only if the psychiatric findings are of such character that if the examining psychiatrist testified at a new trial, the issue of defendant’s insanity would be required to be submitted to the jury.7
The majority reasons that if the psychiatric findings are found insufficient to raise a jury question as to Taylor’s sanity, the trial judge’s error in denying the § 3006A(e) motion will have been proved harmless and the insanity defense was destined to fail. This, however, misconceives the full consequences of the error in denying the defense pretrial motions under § 3006A(e). The judge’s denial of the motions not only deprived counsel of the opportunity to have an independent psychiatrist examine Taylor and testify at trial, but also withheld from counsel the full assistance of a psychiatrist in preparing and presenting the insanity defense. With the guidance of an independent psychiatrist, counsel might have been able to elicit helpful testimony from the other witnesses at the trial as to Taylor’s mental state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Such assistance also would have permitted the lawyer on cross-examination to probe searchingly the foundation of any adverse testimony, and perhaps to turn the testimony to the defendant’s advantage. Thus, even if the findings of the psychiatrist now to be appointed should prove insufficiently conclusive by themselves to raise a jury issue as to Taylor’s insanity, it does not follow that the insanity defense would fail at a full trial.
The majority, in footnote 13, makes the indisputable pronouncement that “the remedy need be no greater than the deprivation.” However, it is seriously mistaken, I respectfully submit, when it seeks to imply thereby that its limited remedy is sufficient, without a new trial, to cure the error committed in refusing the requested examination before trial. If a psychiatric report had been in counsel’s hands in the course of his preparation for trial, he could have built upon it to develop a full trial strategy. The course the majority prescribes precludes this possibility unless the judge, screening the bare psychiatric testimony, unaided by other evidence which might have developed at *385trial, concludes that a meritorious defense of insanity is present.
There is a vast and incalculable difference between a timely psychiatric examination with a report delivered to counsel when he is preparing for trial, and the mere submission of a report after trial; on a circumscribed remand. The former can be a vital aid to a defendant, the latter is only its pale shadow, of limited utility at best.
In the absence of perfect foresight, no intervening judicial assessment as to what would, or would not, be established at trial is possible in the special hearing the majority has prescribed. The right to present a defense is absolute. It should never depend upon preliminary screening by the judge to determine whether the defense is substantial, as the majority directs in this case. The majority’s remedy unwittingly undermines section 3006A(e)’s enlightened effort to advise and assist defense counsel in his preparation for the trial and introduces the potential for denying the defendant the very opportunity for the development of the insanity defense and for its uninhibited presentation which was the congressional purpose in enacting section 3006A(e).

. See also Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775 (5th Cir. 1965), demonstrating the potential unreliability of oven a two-hour examination. Moreover, “[i]t is worthy of note that recent studies have oast significant doubt on the reliability of single-interview psychiatric evaluation.” [citations omitted! Greer v. Beto, 379 F.2d 923, 926 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1967) (separate opinion).

. “A medical determination on competency is not necessarily the same as a legal determination. A doctor can speak as an expert only in terms compatible with his medical training and experience, and psychiatric terminology and legal standards often reflect different concepts to the use of the same words.” Memorandum for the United States, p. 9, Dusky v. United *381States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960), quoted in Holloway v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 343 F.2d 265, 267 at n. 4 (1964).

. It lias been said that when there is a direct appeal from a failure to adequately comply with section 4244, as opposed to collateral attack on the conviction, the judgment must be vacated. Compare Morris v. United States, 414 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1969) (direct appeal); Hansford v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 365 F.2d 920, 926, n. 16 (1966) (direct appeal); Holloway v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 343 F.2d 265, 267 (1964) (direct appeal); Meador v. United States, 332 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1964) (direct appeal) with United States v. Walker, 301 F.2d 211 (6th Cir. 1962) (28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion); Floyd v. United States, 365 F.2d 368, 375 (5th Cir. 1966) (section 2255 motion); Krupnick v. United States, 264 F.2d 213 (8th Cir. 1959) (section 2255 motion). This is a direct appeal.
On the other hand it has been argued that “ [t] he entire thrust of the statute is to require that the determination of the accused’s competency shall be made before he is actually put on trial,” and that accordingly, the failure to order an examination or otherwise properly to determine competency when so moved under the statutory procedure requires the vaca*383tion of judgment even on collateral attack. Sullivan v. United States, 205 F.Supp. 545, 550-552 (S.D.N.Y.1962). The argument seems to bo supported by the Supreme Court's resolution of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), which involved a collateral attack on a state conviction. See note 5, infra. See also Clonch v. Boles, 419 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1969); Wider v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 348 F.2d 358, 361 (1965); Kelley v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822, 825 (D.C.Cir. 1954).

. Memorandum for the United States, p. 16. Dusky v. United States, quoted in Sullivan v. United States, 205 F.Supp. 545, 551 (S.D.N.Y.1962).

. Even the dissenting Justices acknowledged that a new trial was the correct remedy. “Since our further premise is that the trial judge should and could have avoided error, a new trial seems not too drastic an exaction in view of the proof problems arising after a significant lapse of time.” 383 U.S. at 388, 86 S.Ct. at 843.

. Section 3006A(e) represents an important advance in assuring that every accused person have amide opportunity to prepare an effective case, and may be of constitutional magnitude. Jacobs v. United States, 350 F.2d 571 (4th Cir. 1965).
“Unquestionably in the proceedings below the defendant, if financially able, would have had the right to call a privately retained psychiatrist as a witness. It is obvious that only his inability to pay for the services of a psychiatrist prevented a proper presentation of his case. The Supreme Court has unmistakably held that in criminal proceedings it will not tolerate discrimination between indigents and those who possess the means to protect their rights.” 350 F.2d at 573.
While the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. *384561, 73 S.Ct. 391, 97 L.Ed. 549 (1953), declined to declare a constitutional right to the aid of a psychiatrist, the underpinnings of this early reservation have been eroded by a long series of decisions, notably, Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1961).
See Davis v. United States, 413 F.2d 1226, n. 5 (5th Cir. 1969); Jackson v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 336 F.2d 579 (1964) (concurring opinion); Brown v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 331 F.2d 822 (D.C.Cir. 1964); Bush v. McCollum, 231 F.Supp. 560, 564-565 (N.D.Tex.1964), aff’d, 344 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1965).
However, it is not necessary to reach this constitutional issue, since Taylor had a plain statutory right under § 3006A(e) to the appointment of an independent psychiatrist to assist in his defense and to advise his counsel on all aspects of the case, including competency to stand trial.

. Although the majority suggests that the report should indicate a “substantial question of criminal responsibility,” their reliance in footnote 13 on Hall v. United States, 295 F.2d 26, 28 (4th Cir. 1961), makes clear that the report need only establish slight evidence of Taylor’s insanity to warrant a new trial.