148 F.2d 665 (D.C. Cir. 1945)
Holloway was convicted of rape. For years prior to the crime defendant was suffering from mental disease and was an abnormal psychopathic personality. In 1940 he was held in Gallinger Hospital for mental observation. Later he was confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners as a mental case. In the fall of 1943 he was again committed to Gallinger Hospital as a mental patient. He was released, not as recovered, but in the custody of his mother with directions for the treatment of the mental disorders from which he was suffering.1
Some months after this release he raped two women on the same day. No evidence of the second offense was given at the trial. However, for the purpose of examining the experts as to defendant's sanity counsel stipulated as to a hypothetical question referring to both acts.2
At the trial two psychiatrists, one on the staff of Gallinger Hospital and the other a member of the Commission on Mental Health, both testified that the defendant was of unsound mind and at the time of the offense could not tell right from wrong. A third psychiatrist, while admitting that the defendant was a constitutional psychopath, testified that his condition did not amount to a psychosis and that he was able to tell right from wrong. On cross examination this witness admitted that when he examined the defendant he did not know his previous mental record.3 The government offered in evidence the record of a lunacy inquisition of the sanity of the appellant, held approximately a month and a half prior to the trial, wherein the jury found he was of sound mind at that time.4
Holloway appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on the sole ground that the record discloses such substantial doubt of his sanity that the verdict should be set aside.5
Whether the record discloses such substantial doubt of the appellant's sanity that the verdict of conviction for rape should be set aside?6
When insanity is raised as a defense in a criminal trial, the accused must first overcome the presumption of sanity with evidence creating a reasonable doubt as to mental capacity to commit the offense.7 Once that burden is met, the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.8 The jury must be instructed accordingly.9 The tests for criminal responsibility ultimately require a moral judgment by ordinary men on the culpability of the offender rather than a scientific assessment.10 A jury verdict on this issue stands unless circumstances make it shock the conscience of the court.11
No.12 The evidence presented at trial included a history of mental disease and hospitalizations for Holloway.13 There was also conflicting expert testimony from three psychiatrists regarding his ability to tell right from wrong at the time of the rape.14 Two experts found him of unsound mind and unable to distinguish right from wrong, while the third, who lacked knowledge of Holloway's prior record, concluded he could.15 The government countered with a lunacy inquisition conducted shortly before trial that found Holloway of sound mind.16 The jury, after receiving proper instructions on the burden of proof, convicted Holloway, thereby determining that no reasonable doubt of sanity existed.17
Given that the issue of responsibility turns on a moral judgment rather than objective scientific criteria, the verdict does not shock the conscience.18 This is in light of the conflicting evidence and the recent finding of sanity.19 Therefore, the record does not disclose such substantial doubt as to require setting aside the verdict.20
No.