Jenkins v. United States

Click here for full document (PDF)

307 F.2d 637
113 U.S.App.D.C. 300

Vincent E. JENKINS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16306.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

On Rehearing in Banc. Reargued Feb. 9, 1962.
Decided by Judgment Entered April 12, 1962, Opinion Rendered June 7, 1962.

Mr. Gerald Golin, Washington, D.C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant.

Mr. Anthony G. Amsterdam, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., Charles T. Duncan, Principal Asst. U.S. Atty., and Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U.S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Nathan J. Paulson and David J. McTague, Asst. U.S. Attys., also entered appearances for appellee.

Messrs. Arthur B. Hanson, Dean Farrington Cochran and Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Washington, D.C., filed a brief on behalf of American Psychological Association, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Mr. Warren E. Magee, Washington, D.C., filed a brief on behalf of American Psychiatric Association, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, BAZELON, FAHY, WASHINGTON, DANAHER, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges, sitting in banc.

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

1.

Appellant relied solely upon the defense of insanity in a jury trial which culminated in his conviction for housebreaking with intent to commit an assault, assault with intent to rape, and assault with a dangerous weapon. He alleges that the District Court erred in (1) determining his competency to stand trial, (2) excluding diagnostic opinions of two defense psychiatrists on the ground that their opinions were without ‘proper basis,’ (3) instructing the jury to disregard the testimony on three defense psychologists that appellant had a mental disease or defect on the ground that ‘a psychologist is not competent to give a medical opinion as to a mental disease or defect,’ and (4) depriving him of a fair trial by conducting a lengthy and disparaging examination of some expert witnesses.

Click here for full document (PDF)