United States v. James Andrew Cooper

Cooper appeals from his conviction for robbery ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 (a), 2113(d)). We reverse because the Government failed to carry its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Cooper was sane when he robbed the bank.

The Court appointed a psychiatrist, Dr. Polos, to examine Cooper to determine his mental competence to stand trial and his sanity when the offense was committed. In his initial report to the court, Dr. Polos concluded that Cooper was competent to stand trial. He further reported that it was difficult to decide whether Cooper was sane at the time of the offense without more testing and in-depth psychiatric evaluation. 1 At Dr. *452 Polos’ request, the United States Attorney’s office gave him statements from Cooper’s coworkers and from persons who observed him before and after commission of the crime, FBI reports and interviews, and medical reports. Cooper was referred to Dr. Paulson of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute for testing to ascertain the degree of Cooper’s mental illness and his intellectual level and to determine whether Cooper was lying or malingering. Dr. Polos reexamined Cooper after he had studied the reports of Dr. Paulson and the materials…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. I have no quarrel with the proposition that the burden of proving Cooper’s sanity rested with the prosecution. The evidence for the defense successfully dispelled the presumption of sanity. The prosecution must prove a defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, once the defense presents enough evidence of insanity to raise the issue. Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373 , 17 S.Ct. 360 , 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897). The meaning of that well-settled abstract principle must necessarily evolve from its application to the facts of specific cases. After carefully examining the trial transcript, I find myself unable to agree with the majority’s assessment of the evidence on the insanity issue.

I.

The majority interprets Buatte v. United States, 330 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1964) (Buatte I) to have held

This is an incorrect statement of Buatte I. No rule of law requires the government to offer expert medical testimony in every case in which a defendant has a psychiatrist testify for him. The need for expert testimony depends upon the facts of the case. United States v. Ing-man, 1 426 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1970); *456 Mims v. United States, 375 F.2d 135 (5th…

465 F.2d 451 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Andrew COOPER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-1687. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 12, 1973. Alvin S. Michaelson (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. David P. Curnow, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Rober L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 Cooper appeals from his conviction for robbery ( 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2113 (a), 2113(d)). We reverse because the Government failed to carry its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Cooper was sane when he robbed the bank. 2 The Court appointed a psychiatrist, Dr. Polos, to examine Cooper to determine his mental competence to stand trial and his sanity when the offense was committed. In his initial report to the court, Dr. Polos concluded that Cooper was competent to stand trial. He further reported that it was difficult to decide whether Cooper was sane at the time of the offense without more testing and indepth psychiatric evaluation. 1 At Dr. Polos'…