Court Opinion

ID: 9453880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:26:59.907032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:50.841294
License: Public Domain

*464SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
This case is troublesome because, as the court’s opinion notes, there was no error in the District Court’s rulings or in its instructions to the jury. Yet the entire trial below was not directed to the essential point, and the majority’s disposition, I fear, compounds the difficulty.
Appellant’s basic defense at trial was insanity. His psychiatric witness — the only expert witness — testified that appellant had a character or personality disorder which was so severe as to constitute a mental illness. Appellant was termed “a caricature of an adult.” According to the psychiatrist, Wilson has “an aborted kind of mind” and he “emotionally functions like a five year old.” More, he is said to lack “a mature capacity to adhere to the right,” and his capacity for exercising mature judgment is labelled “seriously impaired.” Most importantly, as the majority observes, “he has no effective inner control over his conduct.” Upon this unchallenged foundation, not shaken but actually developed on cross-examination, it is difficult to erect or sustain a finding of sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although there was no contradictory expert testimony, the jury found appellant guilty. Like the majority, I can only speculate as to why the jury ignored the psychiatrist’s testimony. Like the majority, I am inclined to the view that the primary reason was that the psychiatrist’s conclusions, though clearly enunciated, were not buttressed by any substantial information about appellant. The psychiatrist testified only that appellant’s “whole life is just one picture of irresponsibility, dependency, laxity, drinking, indulging himself in whatever he wants to do, rather than assuming any kind of responsibility. Whatever he’s done, wherever he’s been, he’s been a failure.” The defect in the proceedings is that the facts from which this picture of appellant was constructed were never presented to the jury.
A psychiatrist has the obligation to present the jury with the underlying data upon which his opinion is predicated.1 Unsupported conclusions do not give the jury an enlightening view of the defendant’s condition. The jury should be afforded a full opportunity to focus on the dynamics of defendant’s mental and emotional processes and on his capacity to control his actions, rather than to be forced to wrestle with esoteric psychiatric terminology.
To a large extent, however, the character of a psychiatrist’s testimony will depend on the nature and direction of the examination by counsel. Here the examination was extremely cursory and uncritical. Most of defense counsel’s questions to the psychiatrist dealt with appellant’s alleged epilepsy. But the psychiatrist, appellant’s own witness, testified that he was uncertain whether appellant suffered from epilepsy and that in any event, epilepsy would not affect appellant’s capacity for control except during the actual seizure. It was only on cross-examination by government counsel that appellant’s infantile emotional processes were brought to the attention of the jury.
Quite apparently, defense counsel and his psychiatrist had not engaged in significant consultation prior to trial. Another possible explanation for the nature of the direct examination is that suggested by the majority, namely, that defense counsel may have deliberately wished to suppress certain facts about appellant’s background. In some insanity cases the problem may arise that the same facts which tend to demonstrate defendant’s mental illness are also likely to convince the jury that he committed the offense charged. Usually the defense of insanity is by way of confession and avoidance — confessing the act and *465seeking to avoid punishment because of legal irresponsibility. But where there is an independent defense in addition to insanity, or the prosecution’s proof of the commission of the act is weak, the defense counsel and the trial judge should consider a bifurcated trial, so that the questions of whether defendant did the act and, if so, whether he was criminally responsible can be tried separately.2 Since at the outset, only defense counsel is likely to be aware of the relevant facts relating to the merits of the defense or the claim of insanity, he has primary responsibility for suggesting the desirability of bifurcation. But there may be cases when the trial judge himself should perceive the appropriateness of bifurcation and should on his own initiative suggest this procedure to counsel. In any event, in the instant case there seemed to be no doubt that appellant committed the robbery. Thus defense counsel should not have been reluctant to reveal significant facts in appellant’s past, even without a bifurcated trial.
When psychiatrist and counsel fail to provide sufficient underlying information to the jury, the judge, I maintain, has some responsibility to help elicit this vital information. Although ours is indeed an adversary system, a criminal trial is not a game. It is a solemn proceeding in which moral judgment is pronounced. As the governor of the trial, and not a mere moderator, the judge has an affirmative duty to do all that is feasible to assure that these judgments are based upon all the relevant evidence. The judge should not hesitate to prevent the distortion of the jury’s perspective by counsel’s deficient exploration of the underlying, determinative facts. In some cases, the court may feel obligated to suggest that additional witnesses be called. At the very least it should ensure that the psychiatrists who do testify describe the investigations, observations, reasoning and medical theory which led to the ultimate opinion, as voiced on the witness stand.
Professor McCormick has declared that the “core” of the opinion evidence rule would be preserved by a rule “prescribing that the trial judge in his discretion may require that a witness before giving testimony in terms of inference on general description shall first give the concrete details upon which the inference or description is founded, so far as feasible.” 3 The need for judicial supervision is particularly urgent in insanity cases, where the adversary system may malfunction because of the inexperience of counsel, the complexity of the issue, or both. Most criminal defendants are represented by court-appointed lawyers with little experience in criminal law or even other areas of trial work. These lawyers must master new fields of law and new skills. When, in addition, it becomes their task to present a defense of insanity, which involves elusive medical, legal and moral problems, they are often understandably overwhelmed. In these circumstances, intervention from the bench may be absolutely essential for a fair trial.
In the instant case, the trial judge did play more than a passive role. On several occasions he commendably required the expert witness to clarify his opinions. But he never demanded that the psychiatrist present the factual basis for his opinions. Thus the jury never obtained a complete unfolding of defendant’s emotional and mental processes. If they had, they might have acquitted by reason of insanity.
I recognize that for many years the insanity defense has been presented in this unsatisfactory manner. But it is no consolation to appellant to tell him that this is the way things have always *466been done, and the inertia of established practice should not prevail over the demands of justice. The fact remains that he did not have a sufficient hearing on the issue of insanity. I would remand to afford an opportunity for such a hearing. Retrial could be limited to the insanity issue, since there was no taint in the jury’s finding that appellant committed the acts charged.4
After years of intense search by the profession for an improved standard of criminal responsibility, our circuit and others have achieved a virtual consensus. I ask, however, what has been gained for the judicial system by all this effort if, in the trial of cases involving the defense of insanity, the same old questions continue to be asked and the same con-clusional answers are accepted. Have we advanced materially if we tolerate the complete failure of either side to focus on the basic facts indispensable for any significant judgment under the new, carefully established standard? If as shallow and mechanical a performance as this record discloses is validated, then the years of earnest debate upon the legal formula will have advanced us not an iota. I do not overlook the fact that this case was tried before the decision in Chandler, and this may in part account for the inattention to the depth of the requisite inquiry.,
We can, of course, say that the case has been insufficiently proved and therefore affirm, but it is preferable by far for us to remand for a genuine trial of the issue — especially as the defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel. Giving recognition to the objective of a trial when an insanity defense is interposed, it seems to me that, without visiting censure upon any of the participants in the instant case, this court should exercise its discretion to order a new trial and an appropriate investigation of the pertinent facts. By doing this we would give meaning and effect to the rule we recently adopted in Chandler and point the way to its effective implementation. Otherwise we sanction and encourage perfunctory performance and nullify the good doctrine of that case.
While I regret that the majority does not favor a remand in this instance, I note with satisfaction, and call to the attention of district judges in their future practice, the majority’s statement that “had the trial occurred after our decision in Chandler, we would have been inclined to remand the case for a retrial on the issue of mental responsibility because of the failure to develop the factual bases of the psychiatrist’s opinion.”
Finally, I think that until we have a more adequate record it is inappropriate to discuss, as the majority does, whether appellant was the “kind of sociopath” covered by the American Law Institute’s test for insanity. And it is equally inappropriate to determine that the American Law Institute’s reference to powers of control “does not encompass those who do not wish to control and restrain their conduct as contrasted with those whose controls are not governed by their wishes.” It may be that a person’s lack of desire to control1 his conduct is itself the result of an exonerating mental disease or defect. Before passing on this point it would be helpful to have factual detail in the place of abstract theorizing.

. See United States v. Chandler, 393 F.2d 920 (4th Cir. 1968). See also Washington v. United States, 390 F.2d 444 (D.C.Cir. 1967), and especially the court’s recommended instruction to expert witnesses.

. See Holmes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 363 F.2d 281 (1966); Harried v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 330, 389 F.2d 281 (1967).

. McCormick, Evidence 24 (1954) (citing Uniform Rules of Evidence Rule 57).

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; permitting an appellate court to “remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.” See also Holmes v. United States, supra note 2.