Harvey Greene v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Harvey Greene v. United States

352 F.2d 366, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 150, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4919

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1965

Docket19113

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 366 (Harvey Greene v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harvey Greene v. United States, 352 F.2d 366, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 150, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4919 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This case came on for consideration on appellant’s motion to remand this case to the District Court and on appellee’s reply thereto, and it is

Ordered by the court that appellant’s motion is granted and this case is hereby remanded to the District Court for a new trial.

On this appeal from conviction for housebreaking and larceny, appellant’s court-appointed counsel moved for appointment of an amicus on the ground that he required assistance in presenting *367 significant issues in this appeal regarding narcotics addiction and criminal responsibility. 1

At trial, there was evidence that appellant was a narcotics addict and a police officer testified that appellant showed withdrawal symptoms when he was arrested while committing the alleged offense. Defense counsel did not, however, request an insanity instruction and none was given.

After filing the motion for amicus assistance in this court, appellant moved in the District Court for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. 2 He alleged that such evidence was found in an “emergency treatment record” of D. C. General Hospital where he was taken immediately after his arrest. That record indicates that appellant was diagnosed as a “narcotics addict” exhibiting “withdrawal symptoms,” and contains the following notation: “said to be heroin addict since 1945. $40 habit, mainliner; has never taken pills. Last fix over 24 hrs. ago. Now withdrawing.”

The District Court indicated that it would grant appellant’s motion for new trial if the case were remanded by this court. Following Smith v. Pollin, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 178, 194 F.2d 349 (1952), we grant appellant’s motion for remand.

So ordered.

1

. Cf. Heard v. United States, 121 U.S.App. D.C. -, 348 F.2d 43, decided Dec. 17, 1964; Brown v. United States, 118 U.S. App.D.C. 76, 331 F.2d 822 (1964).

2

. Rule 33, FED.E.CEIM.P.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This case came on for consideration on appellant’s motion to remand this case to the District Court and on appellee’s reply thereto, and it is

Ordered by the court that appellant’s motion is granted and this case is hereby remanded to the District Court for a new trial.

On this appeal from conviction for housebreaking and larceny, appellant’s court-appointed counsel moved for appointment of an amicus on the ground that he required assistance in presenting *367 significant issues in this appeal regarding narcotics addiction and criminal responsibility. 1

At trial, there was evidence that appellant was a narcotics addict and a police officer testified that appellant showed withdrawal symptoms when he was arrested while committing the alleged offense. Defense counsel did not, however, request an insanity instruction and none was given.

After filing the motion for amicus assistance in this court, appellant moved in the District Court for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. 2 He alleged that such evidence was found in an “emergency treatment record” of D. C. General Hospital where he was taken immediately after his arrest. That record indicates that appellant was diagnosed as a “narcotics addict” exhibiting “withdrawal symptoms,” and contains the following notation: “said to be heroin addict since 1945. $40 habit, mainliner; has never taken pills. Last fix over 24 hrs. ago. Now withdrawing.”

The District Court indicated that it would grant appellant’s motion for new trial if the case were remanded by this court. Following Smith v. Pollin, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 178, 194 F.2d 349 (1952), we grant appellant’s motion for remand.

So ordered.

1

. Cf. Heard v. United States, 121 U.S.App. D.C. -, 348 F.2d 43, decided Dec. 17, 1964; Brown v. United States, 118 U.S. App.D.C. 76, 331 F.2d 822 (1964).

2

. Rule 33, FED.E.CEIM.P.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 366, 122 U.S. App. D.C. 150, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-greene-v-united-states-cadc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack