Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    William Joseph Findley v. United States, 380 F.2d 752, 10th Cir. (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding William Findley's appeal of his conviction for unauthorized sale of U.S. property. Findley claimed an insanity defense. The court denied his motion to subpoena multiple medical witnesses who had previously examined his mental state. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly determined the physical presence of the requested witnesses was unnecessary since competent court-appointed psychiatrists had recently examined Findley and reports from prior examinations were submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    William Joseph Findley v. United States, 380 F.2d 752, 10th Cir. (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding William Findley's appeal of his conviction for unauthorized sale of U.S. property. Findley claimed an insanity defense. The court denied his motion to subpoena multiple medical witnesses who had previously examined his mental state. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly determined the physical presence of the requested witnesses was unnecessary since competent court-appointed psychiatrists had recently examined Findley and reports from prior examinations were submitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1967-08-01 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 380 F.2d 752 Docket: 9250

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding William Findley's appeal of his conviction for unauthorized sale of U.S. property. Findley claimed an insanity defense. The court denied his motion to subpoena multiple medical witnesses who had previously examined his mental state. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly determined the physical presence of the requested witnesses was unnecessary since competent court-appointed psychiatrists had recently examined Findley and reports from prior examinations were submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    38 views3 pages

    William Joseph Findley v. United States, 380 F.2d 752, 10th Cir. (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding William Findley's appeal of his conviction for unauthorized sale of U.S. property. Findley claimed an insanity defense. The court denied his motion to subpoena multiple medical witnesses who had previously examined his mental state. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly determined the physical presence of the requested witnesses was unnecessary since competent court-appointed psychiatrists had recently examined Findley and reports from prior examinations were submitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    380 F.

    2d 752

    William Joseph FINDLEY, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    No. 9250.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    July 19, 1967.
    Rehearing Denied August 1, 1967.

    Walter L. Gerash, Denver, Colo., for appellant.


    Milton C. Branch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo. (Lawrence M. Henry,
    U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
    Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and BREITENSTEIN,
    Circuit Judges.
    PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

    The appellant Findley was convicted and sentenced in the United States District
    Court for the District of Colorado on a charge of unauthorized sale and
    disposition of property belonging to the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    641. A defense of insanity was interposed, and the only error claimed on this
    appeal is the trial court's denial of a defense motion to subpoena a number of
    medical witnesses under Rule 17(b), F.R. Crim.P.1

    Findley had a history of mental instability dating back to 1944. On a number of


    occasions he had been adjudged insane and committed to institutions. In pretrial proceedings, counsel indicated to the court that he desired to have
    subpoenaed as witnesses the various doctors who had made previous mental
    examinations of Findley. Representations were made to the court that the
    reports of these doctors were available for use at the trial. It was understood by
    the parties and the court that in lieu of calling the doctors as witnesses, these
    reports would be admitted in evidence and local psychiatrists designated to
    examine Findley in order to determine his mental condition at the time of the
    commission of the alleged crime. No contention was made that Findley was

    incompetent to stand trial. Thereafter two such psychiatrists were appointed,


    one of whom was requested by Findley's counsel. The court also directed that
    Findley be removed to a local Veterans' Administration Hospital for
    examination.
    3

    A short time before the trial, and apparently after the doctor designated by
    defense counsel had submitted his report, a motion was filed demanding that all
    the doctors who had previously made mental examinations of Findley be
    subpoenaed at government expense to appear personally as witnesses at the
    trial.2 The court denied the motion, stating in effect that, under the
    circumstances, all of these witnesses were not necessary for an adequate
    defense of Findley. At the trial the reports of all the doctors were accepted in
    evidence to show the results of the former mental examinations.3

    It is argued that the 1966 amendment to Rule 17(b) stripped the court of
    discretionary powers in Rule 17(b) motions. This amendment eliminated the
    necessity of supporting by affidavit the motion or request for the subpoena of a
    witness at government expense, but it requires, in addition to proof of financial
    inability to pay witness fees, a satisfactory showing that the presence of the
    witness is necessary to an adequate defense. Although the amendment inserted
    the word "shall" for "may", the amended rule does not provide an absolute right
    to have any witness produced for the defense at government expense. The trial
    court must determine whether the requested witnesses are necessary to an
    adequate defense of an accused, and in making such determination it has the
    duty to examine the existing circumstances, and should deny the issuance of
    unnecessary subpoenaes and prevent useless or abusive issuance of process.
    Necessarily the determination whether witnesses requested under Rule 17(b)
    are required for an adequate defense of an accused rests largely upon the
    judgment of the trial court. Murdock v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 585,
    cert. denied 366 U.S. 953, 81 S.Ct. 1910, 6 L.Ed.2d 1246; United States v.
    Zuideveld, 7 Cir., 316 F. 2d 873, cert. denied 376 U.S. 916, 84 S.Ct. 671, 11
    L.Ed.2d 612. Here, competent court-appointed psychiatrists examined the
    accused before trial. The reports of all the doctors who had previously
    examined into his mental condition for twenty years were before the jury.
    Accordingly, we are satisfied that the trial court's conclusion that the physical
    presence of the witnesses requested was not necessary for an adequate defense
    of Findley is supported by the record.

    Affirmed.

    Notes:

    Notes:
    1

    Amended Rule 17(b), F.R.Crim.P. provides:


    "Defendants Unable to Pay. The court shall order at any time that a subpoena be
    issued for service on a named witness upon an ex parte application of a
    defendant upon a satisfactory showing that the defendant is financially unable
    to pay the fees of the witness and that the presence of the witness is necessary
    to an adequate defense. If the court orders the subpoena to be issued the costs
    incurred by the process and the fees of the witness so subpoenaed shall be paid
    in the same manner in which similar costs and fees are paid in case of a witness
    subpoenaed in behalf of the government."

    The motion requested the court to order the issuance of subpoenas for the
    appearance of nine medical doctors now residing at:

    Milwaukee, Wisconsin; date of examination 1951 and Dec. 1955

    Woodland Hills, California; date of examination Oct., 1951, and Dec. 1955

    Miami, Florida; date of examination May, 1962

    Rusk, Texas; date of examination Dec., 1965

    Terre Haute, Indiana; date of examination July, 1959

    San Antonio, Texas; date of examination July, 1958

    San Antonio, Texas; date of examination July, 1958

    Miami, Florida; date of examination March, 1959

    Denver, Colorado; date of examination September, 1966; this doctor was


    designated by the court and was available as a witness

    Findley previously had been tried for a criminal offense in the United States
    District Court for the District of Florida, where he interposed the defense of
    insanity. In reversing the conviction the 5th Circuit reviewed the insanity
    history of the accused. Taylor v. United States, 5 Cir., 329 F.2d 384

    You might also like