CRIME LEGISLATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 445, Cannon Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Mr. McMillan (chairman of the full committee), Mr. Whitener, Mr. Broyhill, Mr. Harsha, and Mr. Mathias. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; Leonard Ŏ. Hilder, investigator. Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order. The hearings which we commence today will deal with the following areas of legislation: Changes in the Mallory rule, changes in the Durham rule, detention for questioning, material witness legislation, the so-called habitual criminal or four-time loser proposal, activation of police reserve, and restrictions and prohibitions against possession and importation of dangerous weapons. The bills in the first category-the Mallory rule-are H.R. 1930, H.R. 5334, and H.R. 5726. Under the Durham rule, we have H.R. 1932-or rather I should say dealing with the Durham rule. Under the heading of detention for questioning and detention of material witnesses, we have H.R. 1929, H.R. 5046, H.R. 5335, and H.R. 5336. The habitual criminal legislation is H.R. 1893. The police reserve legislation is H.R. 4322. The firearms and dangerous weapons legislation is H.R. 678 and H.R. 5608. The committee's agenda follows: CRIME BILLS ON AGENDA I. CHANGES IN MALLORY RULE H.R. 1930 (McMillan) (identical to House-passed bill in last Congress). II. CHANGES IN DURHAM RULE H.R. 1932 (McMillan) (identical to House-passed bill in last Congress). III. DETENTION FOR QUESTIONING AND HOLDING MATERIAL WITNESSES H.R. 1929 (McMillan). H.R. 5046 (Mathias) (Commissioners). H.R. 5335 (McMillan) (District of Columbia Bar Special Committee). H.R. 1893 (Becker). IV. FOUR-TIME LOSER V. ACTIVATION OF POLICE RESERVE H.R. 4322 (McMillan) (Commissioners). VI. RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS AGAINST POSSESSION AND IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS H.R. 687 (Multer). H.R. 5608 (Multer) (Commissioners). [H.R. 1930, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To provide for the admission of certain evidence in the courts of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) in the courts of the District of Columbia, evidence including, but not limited to, statements and confessions, otherwise admissible, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in taking an arrested person before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. (b) No statement, including a confession, made by any person during an interrogation by a law-enforcement officer made while such person is under arrest shall be admissible unless prior to such interrogation the arrested person had been advised that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him. [H.R. 5334, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]. A BILL To provide for the admission in evidence of certain confessions in criminal cases in the District of Columbia and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That— 1. In any criminal trial in the District of Columbia evidence, including statements and confessions, otherwise admissible, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in taking an arrested person before a commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States, unless the effect of the delay is to render the confession involuntary. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1, no statement, admission, confession or other evidence obtained from the defendant in an interrogation of him shall be admissible, unless immediately prior to any such interrogation the defendant is plainly advised that he is not required to make any statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him. 3. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or abridge the privilege against self-incrimination. 4. In any criminal trial in the District of Columbia, if the trial judge is of the opinion that a statement or confession has been obtained by the Metropolitan Police from the accused in violation of any constitutional provision, statute, or rule of court, he shall direct that the relevant portions of the transcript and his observations thereon be forwarded by the court clerk to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. 5. Upon receipt of such a transcript, the Commissioners shall promptly forward the same to the special police trial board created by Reorganization Order Numbered 48, dated June 26, 1953, as amended, for prompt trial of the police official or officials allegedly involved in the violation referred to in section 4. The trial board shall have the powers described in chapter 6, title 4 of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia in addition to any others lawfully conferred upon it and the findings of the board and the action ultimately taken, exonerating, reprimanding, disciplining, or otherwise punishing the police official or officials involved, shall in due course be communicated by the Commissioners to the clerk of the court from which the trial transcript was forwarded. [H.R. 5726, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To provide for the admission of certain evidence in the courts of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes Be it. enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no confession, admission, or statement of any person shall be admitted in evidence against him in any criminal trial in the District of Columbia, if such confession, admission, or statement was given involuntarily as a result of coercion, threat, or compulsion of any sort, or obtained by a promise of benefit. SEC. 2. No confession, admission, or statement made by any person in response to questioning while he is under arrest shall be admitted in evidence against him in any criminal trial in the District of Columbia if made after a period of unnecessary delay between his arrest and his appearance before a committing magistrate. SEC. 3. For the purposes of section 2 of this Act a delay in the appearance of the arrested person before a committing magistrate shall not be deemed cause for exclusion of an otherwise admissible confession, admission, or statement, if— (a) immediately prior to any such questioning the defendant was plainly advised by the officers having custody of him, in addition to any previous warning, that he is not required to make any statement at any time and that any statement made by him may be used against him; and (b) prior to any such questioning the arrested person was advised by the officers having custody of him that he would be afforded reasonable opportunity to notify a relative or friend and consult with counsel of his choosing, and was in fact afforded, such opportunity; and (c) not more than six hours elapsed between the arrest and the completion of the confession, statement, or admission; and (d) such questioning and the warning and advice required by subsections (a) and (b) of this section were, whenever reasonably possible, witnessed by a responsible person who was not a law enforcement officer, or transcribed verbatim, or recorded by a wire, tape, or other sound recording, or conducted subject to other comparable means of verification. SEC. 4. In any case in which a confession, admission, or statement is received in evidence pursuant to section 3 of this Act, the trial judge shall make findings of fact with respect to the conditions of admissibility specified in section 3. SEC. 5. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall promulgate rules to require that questioning of arrested persons by officers of the Metropolitan Police Department shall conform to the conditions of admissibility required by this Act. Such rules shall also prescribe disclinary measures for violations by members of the Metropolitan Police Department of any provision of this Act or of any rule promulgated hereunder. SEC. 6. This Act shall be construed in the light of its limited purpose of governing the admissibility of certain evidence in criminal trials in the District of Columbia. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as modifying the right of an arrested person to be taken before a committing magistrate without unnecessary delay. SEC. 7. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or abridge the privilege against self-incrimination. [H.R. 1932, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend section 927 of the Act of March 3, 1901, relating to responsibility for criminal conduct, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 927 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia", approved March 3, 1901, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 24-301 and the following), is amended to read as follows: "§ 927. Insane criminals "(a) Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility; sociopatnic and psychopathic personality is not disease or defect: "(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. "(2) The terms 'mental disease or defect' do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. "(b) Evidence of mental disease or defect admissible when relevant to element of the offense: "(1) Evidence that the defendant in a criminal proceeding suffered from a mental disease or defect shall be admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense. "(c) Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is affirmative defense; requirement of notice; form of verdict: "(1) Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense which the defendant must establish by showing of substantial evidence. "(2) Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility shall not be admissible unless the defendant, at the time of entering his plea of not guilty or within fifteen days thereafter or at such later time as the court may for good cause permit, files with the court and the prosecution written notice of his purpose to rely on such defense. "(3) When the defendant is acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, the verdict and the judgment shall so state. "(d) Mental disease or defect excluding fitness to proceed: "(1) No person who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense shall be tried or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures. "(e) Psychiatric examination of defendant with respect to mental disease or defect excluding responsibility or fitness to proceed: "(1) Whenever the defendant has filed a notice of intention to rely on the defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility supported by prima facie evidence submitted to the court or there is substantial reason to doubt his fitness or capacity to proceed, or substantial reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will otherwise become an issue in the case, the court shall appoint at least one qualified psychiatrist or shall request the Superintendent of the District of Columbia General Hospital or the Superintendent of Saint Elizabeths Hospital or the superintendent of any other appropriate institution to designate at least one qualified psychiatrist, which designation may be or include the superintendent of such hospital, to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant. The court may order the defendant committed to a hospital or other suitable facility for the purpose of examination for such reasonable period as the court may determine to be necessary for the purpose of such examination and report. The court's power to so commit a defendant shall exist notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has been at large on bond or bail. "(2) In such examination any method may be employed which is accepted by the medical profession for the examination of those thought to be suffering from mental disease or defect. “(3) The report of the examination shall include the following: "(D) When a notice of intention to rely on the defense of irresponsibility has been filed, an opinion as to the extent, if any, to which the capacity of the defendant to know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired at the time of the criminal conduct charged. (E) If the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to participate therein, the report shall so state and shall include, if possible, an opinion as to whether such unwillingness of the defendant was the result of mental disease or defect. "(F) The report of the examination shall be filed in triplicate with the clerk of the court who shall cause copies to be delivered to the prosecution and to defense counsel. "(f) Determination of fitness to proceed; effect of finding of unfitness; proceedings if fitness is regained: "(1) When the defendant's mental fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue of such fitness shall be determined by the court. If neither the prosecution nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to subsection (e), the court may make the determination on the basis of such report. If the finding is contested, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue without a jury. If the report is received in evidence upon such hearing the parties who contested the finding thereof shall have the right to summon and cross-examine the psychiatrists who joined in the report and to offer evidence upon the issue. If the court determines that the defendant possesses fitness to proceed to trial, that is, that the defendant has the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense, the court shall order the defendant to stand trial within a reasonable time. "(2) If the court determines at any stage of the proceedings that the defendant lacks mental fitness to proceed, the proceeding against him shall be suspended, pending trial in the future, and the court shall commit the defendant to an appropriate hospital or institution for so long as such unfitness shall endure. Such suspension of proceedings shall not cause jeopardy to attach barring subsequent trial. Whenever the defendant who has been committed to such hospital or other institution is restored to mental fitness in the opinion of the superintendent of such hospital or institution, such superintendent shall certify such fact to the clerk of the court in which the charge against the defendant is pending and the clerk of that court shall furnish copies of said certificate to the parties to the cause. "(3) After the court receives the certificate of such superintendent that the defendant has regained mental fitness to proceed and the court determines that the defendant has regained such fitness to proceed, the trial proceedings shall be resumed or commenced within a reasonable time. Such determination of fitness may be made by the court on the basis of such certificate that the defendant has regained fitness to proceed provided neither the Government nor counsel for the defendant contests the findings that the defendant has regained such fitness to proceed. If the finding that the defendant has regained fitness to proceed is contested, the court shall hold a hearing without a jury on the issue and shall determine such fitness to proceed. "(4) If, however, the court is of the opinion that so much time has elapsed since the commitment of the defendant (to determine fitness to proceed) that it would be unjust to resume the criminal proceedings, the court may dismiss the charge and may order the defendant committed for examination and determination of status by the Mental Health Commission under the provisions of applicable law. "(g) Determination of irresponsibility on basis of report; access to defendant by psychiatrists of own choice; form of expert testimony: "(1) If the report filed pursuant to subsection (e) finds that the defendant at the time of the criminal conduct charged suffered from a mental disease or defect which substantially impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, and the court is satisfied that such impairment was sufficient to exclude responsibility, the court shall enter judgment of acquittal on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. "(2) When, notwithstanding the report filed pursuant to subsection (e), the defendant wishes to be examined by qualified psychiatrists of his own choice, such psychiatrists shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purposes of such examination. |