Lanier Allison Ramer v. United States of America, Eugene Richard Church v. United States

In these two cases we ordered hearings en banc to consider whether we should continue to follow our decision in Sauer v. United States, 1957, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 640 , cert. denied, 354 U.S. 940 , 77 S.Ct. 1405 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1539 . There, we adhered to the so-called M’Naghten rule, as extended by the so-called irresistible impulse theory, as the test of determining whether a defendant in a criminal case can be found to have been insane when he committed the criminal act, and therefore not guilty. We adhered to Sauer in Smith v. United States, 1965, 9 Cir., 342 F.2d 725 and in Kilpatrick v. United States, 1967, 9 Cir., 372 F.2d 93 , cert. denied, 387 U.S. 922 , 87 S.Ct. 2040 , 18 L.Ed.2d 979 . See also Maxwell v. United States, 9 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 735, 740-742 .

For reasons that will appear, we have concluded that these are not appropriate cases in which to reconsider the views that we expressed in Sauer , just as the panel that decided Maxwell felt that it was not an appropriate vehicle for such reconsideration.

1. The facts in Ramer’s appeal.

Ramer was convicted on two counts charging bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). He was tried by the court, sitting without a…

(dissenting):

I share the minority view, expressed by Judge HAMLEY, that our court should have here taken the opportunity to abandon the outdated test of Sauer. I keenly regret that we have not done so.

I do not now concur in the whole of my Brother HAMLEY’S dissenting opinion, for the time may come, very soon indeed, when the force of the avalanch-ing medico-legal criticism and repudiation of our existing rule can no longer be resisted. Until that time, it would seem preferable that I express no opinion as to whether the A.L.I. test, excellent as it is, fully comports with the ideal that none should be punished for an act which he has committed solely because of a deranging mental affliction, whether disease or defect, for which he himself is not responsible.

390 F.2d 564 Lanier Allison RAMER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Eugene Richard CHURCH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 20887. No. 21352. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. February 6, 1968. Rehearing Denied in No. 21352 March 25, 1968. No. 20887: Murray B. Peterson (argued), Oakland, Cal., for appellant. Anthony Michael Glassman, Dennis Kinnarid, Asst. U. S. Attys., William Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. No. 21352: Wied & Wied, Colin Wied (argued), San Diego, Cal., for appellant. Edwin L. Miller, Jr., U. S. Atty., Phillip W. Johnson (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, BARNES, HAMLEY, HAMLIN * , JERTBERG, MERRILL, KOELSCH, BROWNING, DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge. 1 In these two cases we ordered hearings en banc to consider whether we should continue to follow our decision in Sauer v. United States, 1957, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 640 , cert. denied, 354 U.S. 940 , 77 S.Ct. 1405 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1539 . There, we adhered to the so-called M'Naghten rule, as extended by the…