Court Opinion

ID: 9451209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:10:13.234487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:37.069392
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge,
dissented.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner’s motion for release from St. Elizabeths on habeas corpus was de*836nied by the District Court, which then routinely granted an appeal in forma pauperis. The question of appointment of counsel for this appeal is now before us.
Normally we would provide counsel upon request or even without an express request on an appeal allowed without prepayment of costs,1 but Petitioner here affirmatively rejects counsel. In a letter to the Clerk of this court, subsequent to allowance of his appeal, he asked for a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court but said that because of difficulties with his lawyers in the past and although any other member of the bar who is appointed may not be objectionable, “I prefer to personally direct to the Courts [sic] attention those issues and points which I see as pertinent.”
Even assuming that Petitioner desired a lawyer or that the court should consider whether counsel should be appointed for the court’s convenience regardless of his desires, there are additional and substantial reasons against appointing counsel in this case.
This is Petitioner’s seventh habeas corpus proceeding in the five years since he was sent to St. Elizabeths after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on a robbery charge. A previous similar petition should not necessarily preclude a later one, of course, since the issue in each attempt is the current state of the detained person’s mental condition and is unlike a repetitive attack on a criminal conviction 2; however, the number of attempts by this one petitioner and his rejection of counsel make this a case where we ought not force counsel on him.
Petitioner claims that he is not mentally ill and that holding him in St. Elizabeths is unconstitutional. At trial, also, he objected that the evidence of his insanity was insufficient because the St. Elizabeths staff psychiatrist who testified as to his mental illness did not give the basis for his testimony.3 It is clear from the record that Petitioner’s claims have no merit. The expert witness had had Petitioner under his care, and he testified to five manifestations of Petitioner’s illness; he gave his opinion that Petitioner was suffering from schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type. He also testified that the phrasing of the petition for habeas corpus was itself characteristic of one suffering from this illness. In his petition Petitioner also alleged a First Amendment violation; he claims to be a Christian Scientist whose sense of reality is different from that of the doctors.
Petitioner’s problems are inherent in the circumstances of his case, and are not the result of a poor performance by his lawyer. The trial judge, who was aware of the peculiar handicaps under which the lawyer labored,4 commended him for his “splendid effort.” “Under the circumstances * * * I do not think it could have been done better.”
There being no desire for counsel by Petitioner, and there being no non-*837frivolous points raised, we consider it unnecessary to appoint counsel.
Motion for appointment of counsel denied.

. There is, of course, no constitutional requirement of appointment of counsel in the trial court hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963) (dictum); Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F.2d 857, cert. denied, 325 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed. 2003 (1945), although where the circumstances warrant it we assume counsel would be appointed. See United States v. Wilkins ex rel. Wissenfeld, 281 F.2d 707, 715 (2d Cir. 1960). It would follow that there is likewise no constitutional requirement of appointment of counsel on appeal, although sound judicial administration will suggest the need for counsel in some cases.

. Cf. Stewart v. Overholser, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 402, 186 F.2d 339 (1950).

. This witness was called by Petitioner, not by the government, against the advice of his counsel.

. For example, Petitioner would not consent to examination by an independent psychiatrist, as recommended by counsel, because of his Christian Science beliefs.