United States v. James H. McGraw

McGraw appeals from his conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). 1 His defense at trial was that he was not legally sane at the time of the robbery. On appeal, he argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the issue of insanity and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sanity. We reverse and remand.

On November 28, 1973, McGraw entered the main Los Angeles branch of the First Western Bank and handed a note to a teller which read: “This is a stick-up. Give me all your money. Thank you.” She complied and he left. On the afternoon of December 12, he called the F.B.I., admitted the robbery, described himself and advised that he would surrender the next day, which he did.

During trial, the defense called two psychiatrists. Both testified that at the time of the bank robbery, by reason of mental disease or defect, McGraw lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, explaining the reasons for their conclusions.

In rebuttal, the prosecution called one psychiatrist. On direct examination, the psychiatrist testified that…

(concurring):

It seems to me that the record, considered as a whole, establishes, beyond question, that McGraw was legally insane at the time he eommited the alleged offense. All of the expert testimony, including that of the physician presented by the prosecution, leads, ineluctably, to that conclusion. In the light of the unrebutted expert testimony, the Government could not establish, and, in my opinion, can never establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was legally sane at the time of the robbery. Thus, I would respectfully suggest to the district judge that, upon remand, the indictment should be dismissed. See United States v. Howard, 432 F.2d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 1970) (majority concurring opinion). I would not anticipate that the Government, acting responsibly, would undertake, at this late time, to seek out another medical witness who might contradict the testimony of the three apparently reputable physicians who have already expressed the opinion that, under the test of Wade v. United States, cited in the majority opinion, McGraw was not sane when he committed the robbery.

With the addition of these comments, I concur in the careful analysis set forth by…

515 F.2d 758 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. McGRAW, Defendant-Appellant. No. 74-2388. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 1, 1975. P. Vernon Zeitsoff, Deputy Federal Public Defender (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. John J. Resich, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and TURRENTINE, * District Judge. WALLACE, Circuit Judge: 1 McGraw appeals from his conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). 1 His defense at trial was that he was not legally sane at the time of the robbery. On appeal, he argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the issue of insanity and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sanity. We reverse and remand. 2 On November 28, 1973, McGraw entered the main Los Angeles branch of the First Western Bank and handed a note to a teller which read: "This is a stick-up. Give me all your money. Thank you." She complied and he left. On the afternoon of December 12, he called the F.B.I., admitted the robbery, described himself and advised that he would surrender the next day,…