MONTE W. DURHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying conditional release based on the evidence presented at the time.
Appellant sought conditional release from St. Elizabeths Hospital, supported by a certificate and medical testimony. The District Court denied the rel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conditional Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter came on for hearing before the District Court upon the certificate of the Superintendent of St. Eliza-beths Hospital dated November 15, 1961, and testimony of medical witnesses that the appellant was an appropriate subject for a conditional release under D.C.Code Ann. § 24-301 (e) (1961). The District Court having heard the testimony and considered the certificate denied conditional release. Our review of the record fails to disclose that the District Court abused its discretion in denying release on the evidence presented. Overholser v. Leach, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 257 F. 2d 667 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013, 79 S.Ct. 1152, 3 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1959).
However, in view of the lapse of time since the certificate of the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital our determination is without prejudice to the filing of a contemporaneous certificate if the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital presently considers that appellant’s condition warrants a conditional release at this time. By the time of any subsequent hearing,1 should one be held, St. Elizabeths Hospital will have had an additional six months or more to observe appellant and evaluate his eligibility for release.
Affirmed.
. In the event of such hearing the District Court should make findings. See Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A.; Whittaker v. Overholser, 112 U.S.App. D.C. 66, 299 F. 2d 447 (1962) ; Tatem v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 275 F. 2d 894 (1960).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Winfred Overholser v. Leach, 257 F.2d 667 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Pannell v. The Am. Flyer, 359 U.S. 1013 (U.S. 1959)
- Messina v. Clark Equip. Co., 359 U.S. 1013 (U.S. 1959)
- Johnson v. United States, 275 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Whittaker v. Winfred Overholser, 299 F.2d 447 (D.C. Cir. 1962)