sufficient evidence was introduced to raise a bona fide doubt to cause the trial judge to order sua sponte a hearing on competency. The Court notes that throughout that case defense counsel continually argued that the defendant was insane, both at the time of the offense and during the trial, which the Supreme Court interpreted as "necessarily placing in issue the question of Robinson's mental competence to stand trial." 383 U.S. at 384-385, n. 6, 86 S. Ct. at 841.
In the present case, Bradley had been examined by two psychiatric staffs, both of which found him competent to stand trial. His counsel did not advise the Court that since his transfer to the D.C. Jail from St. Elizabeth's Hospital, his mental condition had deteriorated to such a point that he was no longer capable of assisting in his defense. Furthermore, this Court was present and closely considered all of petitioner's testimony, which, at the time it was given, and in retrospect, raised in the Court's mind no question as to Bradley's competency to stand trial.
The test established in Dusky v. United States, supra, to determine competency to stand trial is by no means the test to be applied for a determination of criminal responsibility at the time the offense was committed.
Therefore, since this Court rejects the contention that amnesia precludes competency as a matter of law, and applying the Dusky standard, this Court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
1. Petitioner was indicted for murder in the first degree on February 25, 1963. On March 1, 1963, petitioner was referred to the Legal Psychiatric Services for a mental examination. On March 29, 1963, petitioner was committed to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for a further mental examination.
2. Petitioner was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree on December 3, 1963, after thirteen days of trial, and on January 10, 1964, he received a sentence of ten to thirty years of imprisonment.
3. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal on June 30, 1964. His petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on September 18, 1964. On March 1, 1965 the Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari.
4. On May 28, 1965, petitioner's sentence was reduced to seven to twenty-one years.
5. On March 16, 1965, petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus or in the alternative motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
6. On November 4, 1965, a hearing on the petition and motion was held, at which petitioner was present.
7. At the time of hearing on his motion, petitioner stated that in addition to the grounds for relief set forth in his petition, he was requesting the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature and adequacy of the mental examination made of him by St. Elizabeth's Hospital pursuant to the Order of the Court of March 29, 1963.
8. By Order dated November 22, 1965, the petition of March 16, 1965, was denied.
9. The Court of Appeals remanded this case to the District Court on June 30, 1966.
10. On July 26, 1966, petitioner filed a Motion for Further Proceedings after Remand.
11. The Government filed Opposition to this motion on November 15, 1966.
Wherefore, the Court makes the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. A claim of amnesia does not, in itself, as a matter of law, preclude a finding of mental competency to stand trial.
2. Assuming, arguendo, that amnesia would under some circumstances, and without detailing what those circumstances may be, render a defendant incompetent to stand trial, those conditions were not present in this case, where there was no substantial evidence as to incompetency.
3. The files and records in the case conclusively show that insufficient evidence of mental incompetency to stand trial was introduced at trial to raise a bona fide doubt requiring the Trial Court to sua sponte order a hearing.
4. Viewing the evidence of mental competency, and the Trial Court's own witnessing of the demeanor of petitioner, Halcott A. Bradley was mentally competent to stand trial. The standards required by Dusky v. United States, supra, were fully met and petitioner was not denied due process.
5. The Motion for Further Proceedings after Remand will be denied.
Appropriate order to be submitted by the United States Attorney.