B-139703, SEP. 8, 1960

B-139703, SEP. 8, 1960

TO WARREN OLNEY III, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS:

BY LETTER OF MAY 5, 1960, YOU REQUESTED OUR OPINION AS TO WHICH GOVERNMENT AGENCY'S APPROPRIATION SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH THE EXPENSE OF PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES RENDERED BY DR. JOHN A. KNEIPP ON BEHALF OF HENRY ROBBS, AN INDIGENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONER IN THE CASE OF HENRY ROBBS V. DR. WINIFRED OVERHOLSER; HABEAS CORPUS 131-58, U.S. DIST.CT., D.C.

ON DECEMBER 24, 1954, HENRY ROBBS WAS CHARGED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO BE PROSECUTED BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BEFORE TRIAL THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS OF UNSOUND MIND, THE COURT IMPANELED A JURY TO INQUIRE INTO THE SANITY OF THE DEFENDANT. ON JANUARY 27, 1955, BEFORE TRIAL ON THE CRIMINAL CHARGES, THE JURY FOUND THE DEFENDANT INSANE, AND ON THE SAME DAY HE WAS COMMITTED TO SAINT ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 24 D.C. CODE (1951 ED.SUPP. VIII) 301. IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF 1958 ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ROBBS WERE NOLLE PROSSED AND ON MAY 5, 1958, HE APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHICH WAS DENIED. ON DECEMBER 5, 1958, ROBBS AGAIN APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ALLEGING THAT HE WAS BEING ILLEGALLY RESTRAINED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SAINT ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL, DR. OVERHOLSER, WHO ANSWERED ALLEGING THAT ROBBS WAS THEN MENTALLY INCOMPETENT. AN ORDER GRANTING ROBBS LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WAS IGNED; AND ON ROBBS' MOTION, THE COURT ORDERED THAT DR. KNEIPP BE APPOINTED TO MAKE A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT HE SUPPLY HIS REPORT TO THE COURT ON HEARING. DR. KNEIPP APPEARED ON THE HEARING; AND ON THE BASIS OF HIS TESTIMONY AND THAT OF A SAINT ELIZABETHS PSYCHIATRIST WHO APPEARED FOR DR. OVERHOLSER, THE COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF ROBBS AND GRANTED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ON MARCH 17, 1959.

BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE DR. KNEIPP'S BILL FOR PAYMENT; AND SINCE YOU DO NOT CONSIDER THAT PAYMENT THEREOF FROM APPROPRIATIONS FOR YOUR OFFICE WOULD BE PROPER, YOU HAVE SUBMITTED THE MATTER TO THIS OFFICE FOR DETERMINATION, RAISING THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

"1. IS THE FEE OF THE DOCTOR PAYABLE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATION FOR FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES UNDER YOUR DECISION IN B- 139703, DATED AUGUST 27, 1959, OR ON ANY OTHER BASIS?

"2. IS THE FEE OF THE DOCTOR OTHERWISE PAYABLE FROM ANY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ON THE BASIS THAT ROBBS, WHO WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THE SUIT, WAS A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PATIENT COMMITTED TO SAINT ELIZABETHS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 24 D.C. CODE (1959 ED.SUPP. VI) 301? "

IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 27, 1959, REPORTED AT 39 COMP. GEN. 133, WE HELD, RELYING PRINCIPALLY ON THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. CAVELL, 171 F.SUPP. 417, THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SO RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROVIDED INDIGENT DEFENDANTS BY RULE 17 (B), FED. RULES OF CRIM.PROC., THAT PAYMENT OF WITNESSES APPEARING ON BEHALF AN INDIGENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONER IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 17 (B). AND SINCE THAT RULE PROVIDES FOR THE COSTS INCURRED AND THE FEES OF THE WITNESSES SUBPOENAED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, SUCH COSTS AND FEES ON BEHALF OF INDIGENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONERS WERE HELD PAYABLE FROM APPROPRIATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS IN OTHER ACTIONS FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE RULE.

ROBBS' COMMITMENT TO SAINT ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL WAS PROCURED, UNDER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS MENTAL INCAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL ON CRIMINAL ACTIONS PENDING AGAINST HIM. HIS PETITION FOR RELEASE UNDER WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS AN ACTION AGAINST THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HOSPITAL, A FEDERAL OFFICER, AND WAS CONTESTED, UNSUCCESSFULLY, BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IS CLEAR THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD AN INTEREST IN ROBBS' CASE; AND, THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION IN QUESTION HAVING BEEN ORDERED ON BEHALF OF THE INDIGENT PETITIONER RATHER THAN FOR BENEFIT OF THE COURT, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF OUR PRIOR DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND QUESTION RAISED, WE FIND NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO CHARGE APPROPRIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WITH THE EXPENSE INVOLVED. THE ORIGINAL LUNACY INQUISITION WAS HANDLED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; ROBBS WAS CONFINED TO SAINT ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNITED STATES; THERE WERE NO DISTRICT CHARGES PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF HIS REQUEST FOR RELEASE; AND HIS ACTION FOR RELEASE WAS DIRECTED AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN NO WAY INVOLVED THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS BEING FURNISHED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.