William L. Trest v. United States, 350 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
William L. Trest v. United States, 350 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Moody, 763 F. Supp. 589 (M.D. Ga. 1991)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 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…1 citing caseopening of page *795 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • United States v. Moody, 763 F. Supp. 589 (M.D. Ga. 1991).
    Both paths place the decision in the sound discretion of the trial judge whose familiarity with the defendant and the evidence is preeminent. 6 Foster v. Marshall, 687 F.Supp. 1174, 1175 (S.D.Ohio 1987); Patton v. United States, 403 F.2d 9…
Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William L. TREST, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
19228.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Oct 8, 1965.
350 F.2d 794
✓ 122 U.S. App. D.C. 11
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.
Danaher, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Wright.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
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.