U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1965

William L. Trest v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 8, 1965 · Danaher, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Wright

350 F.2d 794 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. William J. LeBuhn, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Raymond N. Shib-ley, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys. were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Thomas L. Robertson (D.C. Cir. 1974)
United States v. Paul Bradley (D.C. Cir. 1972)
United States v. Moody (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1991)
Frendak v. United States (D.C. 1979)
Alexander Patton v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Nathaniel B. Henderson v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
United States v. Ronald Marble (D.C. Cir. 1991)
United States v. Beachey L. Wright (D.C. Cir. 1980)
United States v. Robertson (District Court, District of Columbia 1977)
United States Ex Rel. Laudati v. Ternullo (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
Hughes v. United States (D.C. 1973)
United States v. Frank L. Simms (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Harold S. Cross v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Robert J. Manning v. United States (10th Cir. 1967)
Frank W. Holmes v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Fanklin Delano Floyd v. United States (5th Cir. 1966)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although a report from St. Elizabeths Hospital stated that appellant was “suffering from Psychoneurotic Reaction, Obsessive-Compulsive Type (Sexual Deviation)” and that his offenses were “products of this condition,” appellant refused to allow an insanity defense to be made on his behalf. Indeed, the appellant himself addressed the court, insisting that he was not “incompetent.” In detail both lucid and explicit, he offered a quite valid *795 and reasonable explanation for the position he took. On appeal counsel contends that the trial judge should have raised the insanity issue in spite of appellant’s wishes. See Whalem v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. -, ---, 346 F.2d 812, 818-819 (1965) (en banc); Overholser v. Lynch, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 288 F.2d 388 (1961), reversed on other grounds, 369 U.S. 705, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962).

We do not think the judge abused his discretion in refusing to raise the issue sua sponte. Appellant had previously been found competent to stand trial, and there is no suggestion that this finding was erroneous. Moreover, whether appellant did in fact commit the criminal act was a closely contested issue during the trial. Introduction of the insanity issue might well have prejudiced his defense on the merits.

We have examined the other points raised on this appeal and found none of them to warrant reversal. The conviction is therefore

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.