United States v. Daniel M. Eichberg

439 F.2d 620, 142 U.S. App. D.C. 110, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12283

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: January 21, 1971
• Docket: 22829, 22830
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a criminal conviction, in which the principal defense was insanity. Appellant contends that the trial judge should have granted his motion of acquittal, because the government failed to prove responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.¹

There may be a defendant so clearly and so seriously disabled that a jury would be compelled to doubt his responsibility, and this court would reverse a conviction on that ground.² But ordinarily, “in view of the complicated nature of the decision to be made — intertwining moral, legal, and medical judgments”³ the jury’s verdict must stand. The expert evidence in this case presented a classic question for the jury on the issue of responsibility. Accordingly, the conviction must be Affirmed.

1 . Appellant also contends that he was deprived of his right to counsel at the psychiatric staff conference held to inquire into the question of criminal responsibility. See Thornton v. Corcoran, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 407 F.2d 695 (1969). The point was neither raised below nor pressed at argument on appeal. Moreover, both the staff conference and the trial occurred before our decision in Thornton. Finally, the record does not indicate that appellant was prejudiced in his cross-examination of the government’s expert witness. We prefer to await more appropriate circumstances for considering the difficult questions involved in a properly presented claim of that type.

2 . E. g., Frigillana v. United Sttaes, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 307 F.2d 665 (1962); Isaac v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 34, 284 F.2d 168 (1960); see King v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 324, 372 F.2d 383, 389 (1967).

3 . Adams v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 142, 413 F.2d 411, 416 (1969), quoting King v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 324, 372 F.2d at 389; accord, Parman v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 196-197, 399 F.2d 559, 567-568 (1968).