Nathaniel B. Henderson v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Nathaniel B. Henderson v. United States

360 F.2d 514, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 380, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6480

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1966

Docket18249_1

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 360 F.2d 514 (Nathaniel B. Henderson 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

Nathaniel B. Henderson v. United States, 360 F.2d 514, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 380, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6480 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw his appeal, in part, or in the alternative for leave to withdraw his appeal in whole, and no opposition having been filed thereto, it is

Ordered by the court that appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw his appeal in whole is granted.

In view of Chief Judge Bazelon’s opinion we have written this short memorandum to explain our action in granting appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal. We do not feel it necessary to present our views on the various matters discussed by the Chief Judge. The motion came to us through counsel from an appellant adjudged competent to stand trial in a ruling not challenged before this court. There was a psychiatric report — not conclusive, by any means— finding him competent to make determinations affecting his appeal.

At the trial the Government contended that assuming appellant had been suf[515]*515fering from a mental illness the actions for which he was tried were not the product thereof. There was psychiatric testimony to that effect. Apparently the jury came to that conclusion. His counsel advised us that the sole contention they were pressing was that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for defendant. This honored appellant’s determination that it was not in his interest to obtain a reversal for the purpose of a new trial.

The prison authorities did not find that he required treatment in a mental institution. He anticipates release upon service of his sentence in the not distant future, and will even be eligible for parole this spring. The case was argued June 2, 1965. On December 7, 1965, he asked dismissal of the appeal, reporting that he had been making good progress in his prison adjustment, including correspondence courses, and concluding for additional reasons that further maintenance of the appeal was not in his interest.

The case is marginal. We are aware as is appellant that he may need continuing psychiatric assistance, but we did not believe under the circumstances that the interest of justice required further proceedings against his will. Accordingly, on December 27, 1965, we entered an order granting appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw his appeal, in part, or in the alternative for leave to withdraw his appeal in whole, and no opposition having been filed thereto, it is

Ordered by the court that appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw his appeal in whole is granted.

In view of Chief Judge Bazelon’s opinion we have written this short memorandum to explain our action in granting appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal. We do not feel it necessary to present our views on the various matters discussed by the Chief Judge. The motion came to us through counsel from an appellant adjudged competent to stand trial in a ruling not challenged before this court. There was a psychiatric report — not conclusive, by any means— finding him competent to make determinations affecting his appeal.

At the trial the Government contended that assuming appellant had been suf[515]*515fering from a mental illness the actions for which he was tried were not the product thereof. There was psychiatric testimony to that effect. Apparently the jury came to that conclusion. His counsel advised us that the sole contention they were pressing was that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for defendant. This honored appellant’s determination that it was not in his interest to obtain a reversal for the purpose of a new trial.

The prison authorities did not find that he required treatment in a mental institution. He anticipates release upon service of his sentence in the not distant future, and will even be eligible for parole this spring. The case was argued June 2, 1965. On December 7, 1965, he asked dismissal of the appeal, reporting that he had been making good progress in his prison adjustment, including correspondence courses, and concluding for additional reasons that further maintenance of the appeal was not in his interest.

The case is marginal. We are aware as is appellant that he may need continuing psychiatric assistance, but we did not believe under the circumstances that the interest of justice required further proceedings against his will. Accordingly, on December 27, 1965, we entered an order granting appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F.2d 514, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 380, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathaniel-b-henderson-v-united-states-cadc-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack