applying the presumption of regularity where government offered evidence in form of detective’s testimony that appellant was advised of his right to silence, contrary to Tuberville’s assertions
How later courts described this case
- applying the presumption of regularity where government offered evidence in form of detective’s testimony that appellant was advised of his right to silence, contrary to Tuberville’s assertions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BURGER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur fully in Judge PRETTY-MAN’S opinion. For emphasis I think it important to point up what I regard as implicit in this opinion concerning Simpson’s case that evidence of a so-called “I.Q.” rating which is low, 1 is not evidence of “mental disease or mental defect.” We have held that such evidence does not warrant an instruction under Durham v. United States and later cases. See Moore v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 332 , 277 F.2d 684 (1960). See also Fisher v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 96 , 149 F.2d 28 (1945), aff’d, 328 U.S. 463 , 66 S.Ct. 1318 , 90 L.Ed. 1382 (1946). Moreover, if such evidence be viewed as bearing on a so-called claim of “diminished responsibility” it should be remembered that this court, in an en banc hearing, rejected that theory as a defense claim in mitigation of punishment. Stewart v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 159 , 275 F.2d 617 (1960), rev’d on other grounds, 366 U.S. 1 , 81 S.Ct. 941 , 6 L.Ed.2d 84 (1961).
*422 Psychological intelligence testing is of highly dubious reliability for purposes of criminal law administration. In records which have come before this court we have noted wide variations in test scores when testing of the subject is under varying conditions or different supervision. For example in the very recent case of Jenkins v. United States, No. 16306, Oct. 26, 1961, - U.S.App.D.C. -, - F.2d -, in a battery of tests government psychologists at different times first recorded 63, then 74 for Jenkins on the I.Q. Section. A relatively short time later other staff members retested Jenkins and he scored 90. Psychiatrists are guided to some extent by tests given by psychologists but their use is as a diagnostic tool; their value for clinical purposes is established where they are subject to interpretation of trained psychiatrists. But it is quite another thing to expect a jury of laymen to interpret the meaning of such tests unless a trained psychiatrist has related it to a disease or defect covered by his medical diagnosis. See discussion of value of “intelligence tests” in Stewart v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. at 162-163 , 275 F.2d at 620-621 .
. The defense relied on a score of 67 recorded in 1953 when Simpson was 14 years old, and his score in the Armed Forces Qualification Test.