◆ SpookStack

Liberties Union—that automatic commitment to a mental hospital . after acquittal oa grounds ef in- ‘sanity violates Constitutional rights.’ + 7 red + "he case now before the Su- preme Court invoives a bad check writer and again the American Civil Liberties Union, this time as “friend of the court,” 1s claiming that the mandatory commitmen law is wnconstitutional. The man in the case is Fred- erick C. Lynch, 42-year-old for- mer Air Force lieutenant colonel who got into trouble for writing bad checks. On the day he pleaded © not guflty in November, 1959, he was sent to District General Hos- \ pital for a mental examination. A month later, the hospital ‘ported that he was mentally mpetent to stand trial but mber 26, 1959, the hospi d he had shown some {mprov ent and now appeared able to nderstand the charges against him. At the same time, however, the lwspital reported that Lynch was suffering from a manic de- pressive psychosis at the time of the arime and that “such an ill- ness would particularly affect his judgment in regard to financial matters, s0 that the crime charged would be a product of this mental! disease.” . The report thus spelled out nsanity defense under the = am rule, but when Lynch trig] his court-appointed coun- 1 chose not to use this defense. Instead, he advised his client to plead guilty. Chief Judge John . af Btunteinel | Tamwic Brith iv eewis Offi, Jf., Gi iu0itipea . Court refused to accept the guilty ' plea. After trying the case, he found Lynch not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered him com- mitted to St. Elizabeths. - Habeas Corpus Proceeding After six months in the hos- pital, Lynch filed a habeas corpus petition attacking the legality of his confinement on the grounds that Municipal Court's refusal to allow him #0 plead guilty degrived. him of his liberty without due process of law, that an “impos- afble burden” had been placed on him to rebut the psychiatric testimony, that his eommi:ment violated the safeguards of the - civil commitment Jaw and that the 1955 mandatory commitmen! TW WAS unconstitutionstr ... the E His oh A e / " st EF f res me bi 8 i 3 E g 5 Ei g 5d 3 eg a g Hl aS Ef g? se : g a ge & i gE é E gé cE gre ge if be e i jagee ee! PRS ste gre iH elke Z i Shortly after Lynch was re- | turned to the hospital, his at- came in ae “friend of the court.’ ions Are Attacked ~= ? e contentions of Lynch and American Civil Liberties Union in effect attack all the later decisions of the Court of Appeals dealing with commitment to the. hospital and release from it. They contend that only the defendant can raise the insanity issue, not the judge ‘or presecutor; that those accused of nonviolent crimes like check-writing should not be covered by the mandatory com- mitment law and that those found not guilty by reason of insanity showld be given pre-commit-_. tment hearing to determine thelr . 3 ‘present mental condition. . | The Government disagrees on all these arguments, citing Cour} of Appeals decisions and the imk - tent of Congress to atrike a bel- ance between the rights of the in- dividual and the rights of society. In its brief, the Government. points out that in more than. 80. opinions since the Durham the court here has developed @ : body of law to achieve the | The Government brief makes @ sO m ieee afl. Te