# Brief for the Respondent — Bush v. Texas > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0308%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the Respondent - **Published:** January 1, 1963 - **Citation:** 372 U.S. 586 ## Text co LIBRARY, . | - SUPREM = COURT. U, S| | CINE CA. CLERK IN THE ss Soa bie res ore ‘teen Comm OF HE UNITED ’ OCTOBER. TERM, 1 NO. 511 - JAMES E. BUSH. ee Petitioner:. THE STATS OF TEXAS, iaabpiniblienaais Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE | a TEXAS COURT ORF CRIMINAL APPEALS © BRIEF FOR THE RESPON DENT WAGGONER Carr - Attorney General of Texas . Sam R. WILson | Assistant Attor ney General ALLo B. Crow, JR. Assistant Attorney General” Linwarp SuHIvers Assistant Attorney Gener ‘al ; Capitol Station if is Austin, Texas mnie eo ee Bruce ALLEN County Attorney “Ellis County Waxahachie, ‘Texas’ Attorneys for Respondent 9. Bae re INDEX. OF AUTHORITIES _ eas nae a : 2 a ee | 7 va Page Angle vy. Rand Express Lined Inc.y 168 . od 423 pPanerior Court of New Jersey, 1961) ‘14 ¢ ~ Carter v: U.S., 252 F. 2d 608 (U.S. Genk a Appeal D.C. Circuit, 1956) © gr es "14 * Common-Wealth v. Calhoun, 238 Penn. 474, | 86 A: 472 — (1913) See as ae nie Ss Ex parte Bush, 313 S S.W. 2d 287 (Texas Criminal Appeals, m 1958) i . —_ . Le Gulley v. Common-Wealth, 284 Ky. 98, 143 S.W. 2d 1059 * Fo 8, ; o ‘9 Hopkins v. Uhited States, 275, F. 2d 155, (US. Court: of .. Apa D.C. Circuit? —: tower renee ike ‘an : 2 ‘ . Langdon ¥. People, 133 Ill. 382, 24 N.E. 874 (1890) . ~~ 22 Metiarty v. O'Brien, 1 Cir, 188 F. 2d 151, 155 12 © Millar’ s Estate; 345 P. 2d 1033 su tae Court. of keine, 1959) - aUaeee ee 14-42 Parker-'v. Guenther, 164 Atlantic 2d 152 neeags Court ‘of Vermont, 1960) 14 Paw lowski v. ait. 1958 A. 2d° 218 (Superior Court of New a 1960) rth ee People v. Maynard, 347 Il. 422, 179 N.E. 833 (1932) 22 _ Pollard v. Howfield, 170 F. 24 170 (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 1948) "" "4 iii ~ “‘INDEX.OF AUTHORITIES—Continued. ° Sher v. DeHaven et al., 199 F. 2d 777 (U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1952) _ Page 14 Shover v. town Lutheran Hospital, 107 NW. 2d 85. (Su- | preme Court of Iowa, 1961) | ‘United. States’ ex me. Smith v. Baldi, $44 US. ‘561, 13 S. ". 391 (1953) Wolfinger v.. Frey, “Tee A. 2d 145 (Court of Appeals of oe 1960) nek ae eae .. Constitution and Statutes Texas Constitution — | _ Article I, Section 15(a) Prt Sreency Texas Civil Statutes — eee Se RE CC Zee - Article 4495-4512 se Ua Paton. Texas Code of Criminal Rinscoiens ay . \ Article 501'.......... Ronee Cr er Article 992-1 Seen Textbooks. and Periodicals Mental Health Services, 4th Edition, 1962-1963 © More Hands to Help, January 1963 - ; - iv es. u (14-- 15. 8A ee . _IN‘THE , SUPRER court Of THE UNITED STATES. - OCTOBER TERM, 1962 - NO, 5H - ‘es _JAMES E. BUSH, tical Sieh ‘ ‘Petitgoner. - VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent. _._ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE | TEXAS: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS , BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT JURISDICTION Although .the facts set forth in’ the jurisdictional ; _, statement in Petitioner’ s brief are true, the Respond- ent denies that there is a substantial federal question - _, presented: for review by this Honorable. Court, QUESTION PRESENTED “Ina qriminal prosecution of an/indigent defendant previously adjudicated to be insane, does the -14th Amendment prohibit the State trial court from find- ing the Defendant sane based-on t testimony of a _ medical doctor and a number of lay. witnesses f STATEMENT OF THE CASE - Respondent denies every assertion of fact ‘in Peti- —— ean: tioner’s : brief except: thiise specifically admitted herein or supporte “dl by the record, This isa State ¢ riminal case in which his Petitioner *was.convitted of. felony theft, habitual eriminal in the Distriet Court of Eflis County, Texas. The evidence at the trial showed that Petitiotier r stole a-collection of | “old eoitis worth about $600 from his @mployer (R 93). The jury found that Petitioner had been twice previ- _ ously convieted of felony offenses less than capital and, therefore, he was sentence ‘ed. to’ life imprisonment, the | mandatory” sentence under Texas law (R 17-19) Tue pertinent history. of Petitioner begins on Octo- | her -26, 1923, when he avas indicted by the grand jury of Navarro “County, Texas, on three. separate indict- - ments, ‘one charging theft: of a bale of cotton of the value of One Hundred (2100) Dollars ; one charging theft of an automobile, and one charging theft of a _ truck (R79-87). Before he could be brought to trial on these jndietments he was brought hefore the C ounty Court of Navarro County, Texas, on an inquiry of lunacy and, on Febraary 14, 1924,:-was found to be of _%Mmsound mind aS ‘the result of an attack of lunacy of. ‘approximately six months duration (R 149). Subse- quent to this adjudication of lunacy Petitioner was apparently sent to the Terrell State Hospital for some period of time arid subsequently discharged therefrom (R 51; “Appendix ‘A’’ Respondent’s brief in opposi- tion to Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Certiorari). After his’ release from the Terrell, State Hospital Petitioner was convicted of about 24 additional theft offenses .(R 62, 7: 3). During the trial on the merits of the cease the Deféndant’s attorney stated that an in- dictment was introduced which showed that Petitioner Bae res had been convicted oy cliarged in 10 or 15 thefts or theft related cases (R137). One, of the State exhibits, printed in the record is an indictment which alleges bao previous conv ictions (R 143). Petitioner had resided with and worked for the vie- tim of this crime fox about four months privr to'the date of the offense, which took place on October 21, 1960 (R 75, 77). The Defendant was arrested in possession, . of the.stolen coins on October 22, 1960, in-Hurst, Texas, ~¢R 94, 95). On. October 25, 1960, Petitioner accom- panied the sheriff of Ellis County, ‘Texas, to a remote area near Arlington, Texas, ind.directed the sheriff to the location of the metal box in which the victim, had - kept the coins which were stolen (R 101). At the scene — ‘to which Petitioner had directed*him, the sheriff dis- covered burned coins, the burnéd remains of the col- _lector’s albums into which the coins had been placed / by the victim, and the burned remains of other ‘papers which had been in the metal box in which the coin col- ‘ lection had been kept (R- 101). On November. 3, 1960, the Petitioner was taken to the office of Dr. John Comp- _ ton, the Ellis County Health Officer, ‘and examined for ’ lunaey by Dr. Compton (R 57, 134, 135). Dr. Compton found the Petitioner to be sane, i.e. that he could dis- ‘ tinguish right from wrong both at the time of the ex- amination and at the time of the offense, October 21, 1960 (R57, 59). Thereafter, on February 7, 1961, the ne nner on which Petitioner was subsequently tried was returned ~ by the Ellis County Grand Jury (R 1-3). The trial was set for April 24, 1961, and on about April 2, 1961, the Court. appointed an attorney to ‘represent Petitioner _ (R 34). On\ April 21, 1961, Dr. Compton, the’ Ellis County Hegith Officer, examined the Petitioner at the — 4 ’ Ellis County jail and again concluded that he was. of ~. sound mind ‘((R 57, 59, 135). On the same date, which was only three davs before the trial date, the Petition- -er’s attorney made two motions. In each he recited Petitioner’s prior adjudication of lunacy and alleged that Petitioner was a pauper. In the first motion he asked that Petitioner be sent. to a.mental hospital for diagnosis and dbservation before the trial (R 3-4). In the second motion he asked that the Court appoint: and _pay for the services of ‘ta competent ‘independent psy- chiatrist’” (R d-6). Both motions were: refused. -Under Texas law the accused in a criminal -ease has the right to have a pre-trial hearing.on tue question of _ whether or not he is insane at the time of the hearing ‘ or was insane at the time of the offense for which he ‘is being tried. On, April 24, 1961, such.a. preliminary a was held at the request of Petitioner (R 6). At this pre- liminary hearing, the State had the duty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Petitioner was sane at the time of the offense and at the time of the hear- ing, because, under Texas law, the 1924 adjudication \— ‘Yaised a continuing rebuttal eee ice of insanity. (R i. pa ae .. Among the testimony offered by the State at the pre- . liminary hearing was tlfe testimony’ of rl Compton, the County Health Officer (R 57-65). *. Compton. testified that he was a physician of some six years ex- perience in the practice of medicine (R 57). He testi- ‘tied that he examined Petitioner on Nov ember 3, 1960, in his office and on April 21, 1961, in the county jail (R 57). Dr. Compton expressed the opinion that the Petitioner was of sound mind and oriented as to time, aw § a= ¢ place, and person on the ‘date of the offense, on the — date of the examinations and on the date of the pre- Jiminary trial (Ro 57-58). He testified that, at his tirst examination, he took Petitioner’s medical history and examined him on his mental capacity to ascertain if he “wis oriented and if he was hiving any difficulty with hallucinations (R 58). Dr.- *Gompton further testified that his examination consisted .of: questions in refer- ence to the Respondent’s name, his birthdate, his. age, (to see if they cor responded, his age with the right vear), questions as to the location where he was, the place, the time, the date, the month, the year; general- ities as to who was President of the U nited States and - Governor of Texas; his past:medical history, if. he has had any serious illnesses; as to any hallucinations, (hearing Voices, seeing things that were ‘not actually there) ; questions as to any paranoid tendency, (a feel- ing of evervbody being against him or any threats to him) ; questions as to his schooling, how far he went in school; simple mathematieal- problems to'see if he was ' able to keep a train of thought; questions intended to . test his mente! ability and thought processes (R 63). Dr. Compton, whose studies in medical school included psvehiatw (R 64) and who treats patients with emo- tional problems.in his private practice (R 136) further testified that, in his opinion, it was not necessary for a more thorough examination of Petitioner to be con- ducted by a psychiatrist or psychologist in order té eliminate the possibility that Petitioner might be ini- sane (R63). Di. Compton further testified that he was using the word.*‘insane’’ as meaning unable to distin- ‘guish right from wrong (R 69). In response to ques- tiohs from the defense Dr.-Compton also testified at ‘length about the nature of kleptémania and mental ill- nesses generaliy (R 59-64). Specifically, in relation to 4 *-kleptomania, Dr. Compton testified that generally, klep- tomaniacs regularly steal thfngs that they do not need. — _ That they will go routinely into stores and take things that they do not. need and, having stolen those things just put them up and never use them (R 62). Dr. Comp- ton further testified that, in his opinion, Petitioner is not a kleptomaniae (R64). At the conclusion. 6f Dr. Compton's s testimony a dis: cussion was had between the Court and counsel which established that the State had two or three more wit- nesses: to call and the defense counsel made the follow- ing motion: ‘Your Honor, in view of this, I would like to make the motion that the. Court recess in order to allow a doctor we have got to examine this man and who hasn’t had the opportunity before, to check with . him, possibly over-the lunch hour. He just came in.’’ ‘ (R 65). The Judge indicated his approval of counsel’s request and the Court apparently recessed for not Jess than a 45 minute, lunch period (R 65). After the-recess the prosecution called two more witnesses - (R 65-68), both of whom were laymen and both of whom testified that from their observations, they thought’ that Peti- - tioner was of, sound, mind both at the time of the pre- * liminary: hearing and at the time of the offense (R 66- --68). The State having rested, the defense ‘called as its first witness Dr. James A. Dyal, aii Assistant Profes- sor in psychology at Southern Methodist University. (R 68). Dr. Dyal testified that he has a Ph.D. degree in psychology from the University of Illinois and has . done clinical work dealing with mentally der ranged per- sons (R 68-69). So far as the record reflects Dr. Dyal is not a physician nor is he licensed to practice medi- | cine. Dr. Dyal testified that he had examined the Peti- tioner in a 20 minute interview .(R 69, 70). Dr. Dyal po further testified that his examination was not adequate for Him te'form an opinion about the Petitioner's men- tal cendition (R 69, 70). The record does: trot retlect when Dr. Dyal examined Petitioner, where the exam- ination took place, nor why the examination consisted -of only a20 minute interview. Dr. Dval then testitied _as to what, in his opinion, Would constitute an adequate examination in order to detertuine whether an indi- vidual is ‘‘insane”’ or not (R 70-72). Dr. Dval further — testified that a kleptomaniac is a mentally ill person ~ and that **... typically a person who is a kleptomaniae steals bec: ise: he cannot keep from stealing and does not attempt to turn whatever’ he steals into gain for Petitioner even though Petitioner-had been convicted of 24 offenses after his adjudication of lundey wh’ -h, under Texas law, meant that Petitioner had ‘te ‘lear ly appeared saneYn 24 separate, occasions | Artic le 501, Texas ode of Criminal Proc cedure ), Texas law provides for a: pre-tri: i hearing, on the ¢ question of Sanity and, in the casé’ at. bar, Petitioner. was accorded that right upon his. attorney's request. Atthe hearing Petitioner's attorney A given a ie _ See Sa Oo eB i r 4 i have a *doctor’”’ examine Petitioner “(R 69) and, despite the remoteness “of the adjudication of lunaey, the jury was instructed that -the State had the burden - of proving Petitioner’s sanity beyond a reasonable * doubt “(CR 7-8). i‘ the trial of the cause on the merits was had and Peti- eason of te”. On the day following the pretrial wi hearing, | ‘ ~~ thoner was allowed -to plead not guilty | _ insamft both at the time of the offense and at the time— of thé trial (R91). During the trial on the merits de- fense counsel moved that the proceedings-he suspended | ~ and Petjtioner be examined for insanity by a psychol- _ogist or psychiatrist ‘tsomeone competent in mental “defects’” (R 131). The defense did not suggést’ the’ oy appointment of any one particular person to make this \ \. . eXamination end the Court offered the services of the vations have been prev iously discussed (R131). The defense declined’ the Court’s offer and rested (R131). pot At the conclusion of the trial on the merits Peti- tioher was again aveorded the full benefit. of the pre- sumption of insanity arising from his previous adju- .. -« dieation ‘of lunacy. The Court instructed the jury.that the burden wis uponithe State to prove’ Petitioner’s > sanity bevond a’reasonable doubt and that Petitioner “ was presumed to be insane and the jury should so find unless thev ‘were convinced by the. evidence bevond a “Feasonable doubt of Pefitioner’s sanity (R 15-16). —* ‘ a ei Even thengh Petitioner is prese ntl? confined in the Texas prison, he is still a subjeet of-concern to the State. Tf. at any time, he is found to be mentally ill, . there is elabor: ate state machinery -hy which the prison svehiatrist Gan have-him hospitalized (Arti¢le 932-1, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure). \ - ‘ounty Health Officer, Dr. John Compton, whose qual-: + ies” , IV. : THE RULE WHICH PETITIONER URGES. THIS COURT TO ADORT WOULD PLACK AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON, THE STATE OF TEX AS AND COULD NOT BE ADMINISTERED. The Texas law does not separately li®ense pve ‘hia- trists nor does it define psvehiatrists or Tinnit Who may call himself a psychiatrist. . rie ‘ There are, of course, a number 6f physicians who . purport to be psychiatrists, some of whom are certitied inv psychiatry by the Americar soar of Psvehiatry and Neurology. At the present tQhe there ar@about 399 “*psvehiatrists’’ practicing ine Texas (Mental Health Services, a directory for Texas, 4th Edition, 1962-1963, prepared by the Division of Mental Health, Texas Department of Health, and the Texas Associa- - tiof for Mental Health). These 399 *t psychiatrists” are located, however, in only 34 Tex: is counties, T here are 220 “Texas counties which still do not have a. resi- dent ‘psychiatrist’? (More Hands to Help, published hy Texas State Department of Health, Division of Mental Health, January 1965 copied hereits as Appen- dix A). It would be impersible in the State of Texas to require the appointment of a ‘tpsychiatrist’? to ex- amine the Defendant in a criminal case tried in one of those remote counties. Admittedly, the State has a duty to furnish all the ¢ ‘onstitutional safegnards ree. * gardless of the diffie ‘ult y eneounter“d but this illustrates ‘that the Petitioner is advocating an impossible burden 2 and Respondent respect Maly: submits that the Consti” tution does not require the State to hear 'such an im- possthle burden. ~. Gi —_ THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PETITIONER'S. COUNSEL WAS NOT IMPA IRED BY. THE RE- FUSAL OF THE COURT TO GRANT HIS MO- TION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A PSYCHI- ATRIST. °* Three days before the scheduled Trial date, Peti- ' tioner made a-motion that the trial court “appoint and lo pay for a competent independent psychiatrist’s serv- ices so that the: Defendant can adequately prepare his-~ defense... .”’ This is not a case“where a prosecution, calling upon the vast resources at its. command, brought _ forth high priced expert testimony while denying the~ Defendant any form of assistance whatsoever. The ree- ord reveals that the State relied upon the testimony of - '. a competent, reputable, independent physician whose official duties as County Health Officer, required, him to. examine and treat prisoners in the county jail. There is no showing in this record that Petitioner or his counsel requested the assistance of, or consultation - with the County Health Officer. The record’ does’ not * reflect any attempt by the Petitioner or his Lounsel to get the County Heakh Officer to perform. any of the tests the absence of which ‘Petitioner now contends renders the County Health Officer’s testimotiy of no value. In fact, when the court offered to appoint the County Health Officer to make further studies of Pe- titiori®#’s mental condition the offer: was declined by the defense (R131): Despite Petitioner's solemn avowal before this court that the denial of court appointed: technical assistance prejudiced the presentation of his ease in the State- trial court, a reading of the récord illustrates that Pe- titioner’s counsel did not seriously want the very tech- we ie \) 3 a ‘o : " . 2 . 5 2 “ : . : nical assistance the absence of whieli he complains ‘about here. At page 35 6f Petitioners brief it is as- serted that it is ‘ta principal of medical ethies that the — indigent always have a call on a doctor for his free services.’ The record before this court does not retlect that the Petitioner’s counsel made any attempt what- soever to avail himself of any of the ‘free’ services’ which he now so blandly asserts would be readily avail- able to an indigent defendant. In fact, there is no show- ing avhatsogver in the ‘record that Petitioner or his. counsel made any attempt to obtain the services of a psychiatrist or psychologist except by virtue of the motion made by the defense counsel three days before the scheduled trial date. In addition, however, when, at the pre-trial héaring, counsel moved the court to re- cess to allow a-‘*doctor”’ that he had just obtained te - examine Petitioner over the lunch hour (R65). The “court granted that reqnest. After lunch the court re- * convened, the prosecution presented two more wit-/ nesses and rested, (Ro 65-68). The defense then called Di. James A. Dyal, a psychologist and an assistant (pro- fessor of psve holo at Southern Methodist University who testified that he found no symptoms of mental, ill- ness or defect in’ Petitioner ay 73), and that he had. _ been tinable to*form an opinion as to Pétitioner’s sanity. heeause he had only interviewed Jactitioner for twenty ~minnutes‘at some unspecified previous time (R69, 70), Dr. Dval also testified that an adequate examination of -Petitioner would consume ‘two or three | lours of a psv- | ~ ehiatrist’s or psy chologist’ time..." (R72). Inste: ad of requesting the court te grant Dr. Dval this addi- tional time whieh, -ac cording te his own testimony, would have been sufficient for him to form an opinion as to Petitioner’s sanity, the defense counsel chose to proceed with the hearing ‘calling an additional witness / | | ® 2 = after the conelusion of the examination of Dr., Dyal (CR 75, 78). If Petitioner's counsel seriously wanted Dr. Dyal to perform what ne (Dr. Dyal) would have con- sidered ah adequate eximination surely counsel would» have requested the court to grant an additional recess ‘for a¢his purpose. Although Petitioner asserts in his brief that Dr. Dyal was ‘trequired’’ to make his exam- ination over the brief luncheon recess, the record re- flects that the-defense asked for a recess over the lunch=—— - eon period and the court granted it. In addition, there — is flo showing in the record that the Petitioner, who had been confined in the County jail, was not av ailable for examination on a previous date if counsel had at+ ‘tempted to get Dr. Dyal from Dallas te examine Peti- - - tioner at that time. In fact, the record simply does not retleect that the recess was-necessary since Dr. Dyal might well have been ‘available to. examine Petitioner ‘previously if he had been ‘requested to do so. One fur- ther aspect of the defense handling of Dr. Dyal and his testimony indieates further that defense counsel — did not seriously desire his assistance or’ testimony. It is undisputed that the trial on the merits of this case was not until the .uext day. Dr. Dyal was obv iously présent in thd court room up until the time he con- cluded his testimoniy and the only witness who testified after him, was Mr. Hackler whose examination must: have been brief because it only. occupies four pages of . the record, (R 75-78). The record does not reflect that - counsel made any attempt to have Dr. Dval conduct an - examination of Petitioner after the conclusion of the proceedings on the pre-trial sanity hearing nor is there any explanation in the record why he could not have ~done.so had he so desired. Respondent submits that this entire conduct on the part of defense counsel was in- tended as a matter of trial tactics and shows that coun- . ra - sel did not seriously feel the need for the assistanee of Dr. Dyal. During the trial on the merits, the de ‘Tense. did not reeall Dr: Dyal nor did the defense attempt to explain why Dr. Dyal had not examined Petitioner in the time hetwe ‘ent the pre-trial hearing on, sanity and’ the’ u ial on the nierits, if in fact such an examination did dotitake plage. During the trial on the merits, how- | ever, defense cquny el did-clect to move that the pro- epddibes: be syypendeduntil the Petitioner? could be vir oa metital institutionor closer observation or | that the’ court ‘appoint a psyve pants x psychologist to éxamine the Defendant: The courtofiered to appoint the County Health’ Officer (R131) a counsel,_know- ing that the County Health Officer did not claim to be \ a ‘*psyéhiatrist-or psy chologist,”? declined the oifer (R | 131). If Petitioner’s counsel! seriously desired the: Sserv-- > jees of a psy hobogiet, why didn’t he make full use of the services which Dr: Dyal was obviously -willing to render since he had driven from Dallas to Waxahachie, the site of the trial, and apparently would have been . - willing to make the Tull examination? if defense coun- sel seriously felt that the additional aS 4ey h Dr. Dyal deseribed-in his testimony (R71), some of which. had not been performed by Dr. Compton, were neces- -sary to fully assess the Petitioner’s mental condition, why didn’t he request that the County Health Officer perform those tests when the Court offered to appoint the County Health Officer to make whattver examina- tion and observation counsel referred to in his motion. to suspend. the proceedings ? The entire contention that ‘Petitioner's sanity Was ‘seriously in issue imthis case is the result of a unique feature of the Texas law which allows 3 Judgment of - lunaey entered 37 vears before the trial to raise a con- ?r —22— | tinuing presumption of insanity regardless of its re- -moteness and regardless of the fact that-it does not: indicate a permanent type of insanity -but instead, re- _ cites that Peétitioner has had a number of- Cattacks’’.” of lunacy. In some jurisdictions the remoteness of the 1924 judication would h have so materially weakened the _presumption that it would have been practically neu- ’ tralized, for example see: Gulley+v..,Common-Wealth, - 284 Ky. 98, 143 S.W. 2d 1059 (1940) ; Common-W ealth v. Calhoun, 238 Penn. 474, 86 A. 472 (1913) ; Langdon ', People, 133 Ill. 382, 24 N.E. 874 (1890); People. v. M ignat A347 IM. 422, — N. KE. 8 33 eee): : — note hee le n vabtotenky acarded the “full ened of a pre- sumption of insanity by the courts of Texas, having. even. obtained his release from the penitentiaryon a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of Criminal Ap- peals of Texas because of the failure of a previous trial court to appoint an attorney to represent him. Ex parte Bash, 313 S.W, 2d 287 (Texas Criminal Ap- peals. 1958). . The record in this case reflects that the Petitioner was accorded. every possible protection to assure that: ‘he was able to present his defense. He was furnished counsel ‘ without) showing he «was indigent. Before - trial, he was given a comprehensive psychiatric exam- ‘ination by a competent, experienced, licensed, inde- pendent physician whose legal duty was to examine diim and treat him if he was ill. He was accorded a ks , trial hearing on insanity, during which his counsel wa given every opportunity to present any evidence of ‘insanity and, at the conelusion of which, he was given the benetit of a stronger presumption of insanity than most jurisdictions recognize. At the trial on the merits . at pe . . Ht! . ° *, —S x s 3 a ~ e the next day he was again given every opportunity to present_ his .defense,- inehiding The opportunity tore ~ oe Me “quest further examination by the County Health Office ‘r. | Respondent respectfully ~ubmits that this Petitioner -has been accorded every aspect of due process of law including adequate psychiatric examination, CONCLUSION: For the reasons st: ited it is respectfully submitted that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas should be affirmed. | - Pam | gee Respectfully, submitted, ‘WAGGONER Carr Attorney General of Texas Sam R. Witson * | Assistant Attorney General] : ALLO B. Crow, JR. REET ea ; Assistant Attor ney General == a Lixw ARD SHIVERS Assistant Attorney Gene ral | Capitol Station «Austin, Texas | rs Breck ALLEN (* ounty Attorney Ellis’ C ounty Waxahachie, Texas “Afforneys for’ Respondent - Ee et TEXAS STATE DEPARTMENT of HEALTH: — Division of | Mental Mealth — : Reprinted from Texas Health Bulletin > e _ January; 1963 nff'® « of The number of psychiatrists prac- - ticing in Texas increased to a new high in September, 1962. A recent count, compiled by the research and epidem- iology program: of the State Health Department’s Mental Health Division, | indicates a total of 399 psychiatrists who are working in the State. This total includes all psychiatrists listed in Mental Health Services: A Directory for Texas, 1962, published jointly by the Division of Mental Health and the Texas Association of Mental Health. The listing was confirmed by . comparisons with the List of Fellows and Members of the American Psycbiat- ric Association, 1961-62, all the Di- rectory of Medical Practitioners Author- ized to Practice Medicine in Texas compiled as of March, 1962. Also in- formation was gathered from local com- munities in which peychiatriste per ee -In March, 1961, only 290 sania trists, were known to be practicing in Texas. Approximately | 46 percent (187 doctors) of the 399 psychiatrists in Texas are known to be practicing in *full-time institutional settings such as State or V.A. clinics and hospitals, military bases, clinics in college health centers, etc. The remaining 54 yeas. are in private practice. Psychiatrists and the Texes Population Although psychiatrists are located . . in only 34.of 254, Texas counties, these : \ ig oo mw ao ae ee ts / _ — we . —_ i oom fcune | aa I Oe f . ae i ~ 0 bated tod "Ds PS / e 7 on) ae fo) : st - tee ‘s bee! 4 ae . a ‘a gs deers . pe, ee aes , ; nal “7 2 vaio as aut ie iuaz Sey ee 19 | a ceaes eee oe te . ee: DISTRIBUTION OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN TEXAS | "BY SIZE COUNTY AND PERCENT POPULATION, SEPTEMBER, 1962000 Number PerCent Numberof - - ««.—s Per Cantof => —Ratio of Sass of of Stotes Counties with | Number of. Psychietrists Psychictrists County Size Counties I is cecal Paychiatriste® Psychiatrists in Counties to Population Below 25,000 192 20.9(2,034,939) «4 | ‘ i 1:508, 735 25,000-50,000 34 —12.3(1,200,304) 7 ° aerate te 75,019 $0,000.100,000 11. . 8.5( 824,129) -8 19 4.8 Wy 43,375 Over 100,000 16° $8.3(5,684,577) 15: 360 9.1 | 1n 15,790 TOTAL 253* 100,0(9,743,949) 34 399 100.0 = ys24,421" Sowce: Populetion Estimetes for Tones Counties, April 1, 1961. Prepored by The Population ' Research Center, Department of Seciolegy, The Uni ver sity of Texes. Sowce: Montel Health Services: A Directory for Texos, 1962. Published by the Division of Mantel Health, Texes Stete Heelth Depertment, ond the Texes Asseciction foe Mental Health, Austin, Texes. | “For Purposes of this enelysis, Potter and Rendall counties neve been combined. s 7 ‘ --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0308%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.