United States v. Joseph T. Wells
446 F.2d 2 (1971)
Rule of Law:
The legal standard for criminal insanity excludes abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or antisocial conduct, and the priest-penitent privilege is restricted to confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking spiritual rehabilitation.
Facts:
- Appellant Wells committed bank robbery and bank robbery while armed.
- Appellant's defense at trial primarily centered on his claim of legal insanity regarding the crimes.
- Appellant wrote a letter to a priest, requesting the priest to contact Agent Jansen of the FBI and arrange a meeting between the agent and appellant.
- The priest interpreted the letter as not intended to be confidential and subsequently provided a copy of it to the FBI.
- The government psychiatrist, Dr. Johnston, who had observed appellant over a two-year period and interviewed him often, testified that appellant was “probably responsible and competent” at the time of the crime.
- The defense psychiatrist, Dr. Schwartz, acknowledged on cross-examination that a person in appellant's situation could have been faking insanity.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was charged with bank robbery and bank robbery while armed.
- The case proceeded to trial before a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The District Court, Judge Jack B. Weinstein presiding, entered a judgment convicting appellant on both counts and sentenced him to 15 years in prison on each, to run concurrently.
- Appellant appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the legal standard for criminal responsibility, which excludes abnormality manifested solely by repeated criminal conduct from constituting a mental disease or defect, remain valid? 2. Was there insufficient evidence for a jury to find a defendant legally sane, requiring an acquittal on insanity grounds as a matter of law? 3. Does a letter from a defendant to a priest, requesting assistance in contacting an FBI agent, fall within the scope of the priest-penitent privilege?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Joseph Smith
1. Yes, the legal standard for criminal responsibility, which excludes abnormality manifested solely by repeated criminal conduct from constituting a mental disease or defect, remains valid. The court affirmed the trial judge's instructions consistent with decisions of the Second Circuit. Adhering to United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. 1966), which adopted the A.L.I. Model Penal Code § 4.01, the court emphasized that 'mere recidivism' alone does not justify an acquittal based on insanity. It requires 'other evidence of mental disease augmenting mere recidivism.' The court reasoned that if the commission of crimes itself could establish legal insanity, criminal sanctions would cease to exist. 2. No, there was not insufficient evidence for a jury to find the defendant legally sane, and therefore, an acquittal on insanity grounds as a matter of law was not required. The court found that it could not say a reasonable doubt as to sanity existed as a matter of law. While a reasonable jury might have concluded that the defendant was insane based on the evidence, this does not mean that a different conclusion was beyond the jury's province. The defense psychiatrist admitted the defendant could have been faking insanity, and the government psychiatrist, who had observed the defendant for two years, testified that he was 'probably responsible and competent' at the time of the crime. 3. No, the letter from the appellant to a priest, requesting assistance in contacting an FBI agent, did not fall within the scope of the priest-penitent privilege. The court determined that the letter contained no hint of an intent for confidentiality, nor did its purpose appear to be for obtaining religious or other counsel, advice, solace, absolution, or ministration. Instead, it merely requested assistance in connecting the appellant with an FBI agent and explained his purpose. The privilege, recognized in federal courts, is restricted to confidential confession or other confidential communications of a penitent seeking spiritual rehabilitation. Thus, the letter was not privileged and was admissible as relevant to the issue of sanity due to its coherent and reasoned tone.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high threshold for establishing a criminal insanity defense, clarifying that a history of criminal or antisocial conduct alone is insufficient to meet the 'mental disease or defect' standard. It also precisely delineates the narrow scope of the priest-penitent privilege in federal courts, limiting its applicability strictly to confidential communications intended for spiritual rehabilitation. Furthermore, the court's decision on the sufficiency of evidence underscores the broad discretion afforded to juries in assessing conflicting expert testimony regarding a defendant's sanity, making it challenging to overturn a sanity finding as a matter of law.
