# Reply BriefAmicus Curiae — Lynch v. Overholser

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0087%3A6

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Reply BriefAmicus Curiae
- **Published:** January 1, 1962
- **Citation:** 369 U.S. 705

## Text

rm F. DAVIS, CLERK

IN THE :

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1961

No. 159

FREDERICK C. LYNCH,
2

WINFRED OVERHOLSER, SUPERINTENDENT, ST.
ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL, WASHINGTON, .D.C.

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION, AS AMICUS CURIAE
¢

Francis M. Suna,
734 Fifteenth Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C.

Lawrence Speiser,
1612 I Street, N.W..,
Washington, D. C.

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae.

“yy

— — —

J

Hamilton v. Alabama, No. 32, O.T. 1961. emia

—2634

INDEX
SuBJsEctT ixpex

Reply Brief for Amicus Curiae : pus

A. Standards to be Applied to Cases Arising i in
the District of Columbia 2
B. Construction of Rule 9 4
C. Abuse of Discretion . 5

D. Construing the Statute Not to Apply Where

the Defendant Does Not Raise the Insanity

Defense or Alternatively Where He Attempis
to Plead Guilty 7

E. Construing the Statute Not to Apply Where

the Crime Charged is a Non-Violent Misde-
meanor 8 9
F. Constitutionality of Subsection 301 (d) 11
G. Constitutionality of the Release Standards. 16
H. Deprivation of Right to Counsel 21
Conclusion 24

TasLe or Aurnonrrixs Crrep
Cases:

Bratty v. Attorney General for Northern Ire-
land, 3 Wkly. L.R. [1961] 965 7 n. 4
Ex parte Brown; 39 Wash. 160, 81 Poe. e 12 n. 8
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 21 n. 16
Canizio v. New York „7 U.S. 82 ori 22
Ex parte Clark, 86 Kan. 538, 121 Pac. 492 12
Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469 aes 6
Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 13
Evans v. Rives, 126 F.2d 633 f 21, 22
Fisher v. United States, 328 U.S. 463 . 2
Foster v. Illinois, 332 U.S. 1444 21 n. 16
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 0 a 22
Griffin v. United States, 336 U.S. 704 2
22

ow
\
INDEX

Prue
Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415 fee
Hirabayashi‘v. Uniied States, 320U.S.81 a
Ex parte Hodges, 314 S. W. 2d 581 6
Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790... 19
Liverpool, N.Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Commissioners,

Mh Wh ᷣ ͤ ͤ v ͤ we ce cw 19
Mackey v. Mendora- Mart ines, 362 U.S. 384 9
Michener v. Johnston, 141 F.2d 171 22
Overholser v. Russell, 382 F.2d 195 9

People ez rel. Peabody v. Baker, 59 Mise. 359, 110

N. V. Supp. 88 „.

People ex rel. Peabody v. Chanler, 133 App.
Div. 159, 117 N. v. Supp. 322, aff'd, 196 N.Y.

525, 68 NN... 1100... |... 12 n. 8
Ragsdale v. Overholser, 281 Fd 943 8 n. 6, 15
Regina v. Kemp, [1957] 1 C. B. 399 3
Rez v. Oliver, 6 Cr. App. 199 6, 7
Robinson v. Johnston, 50 F. Supp. 774 22

Ex parte Slayback, 209 Cal. 480, 288 Pac. 769 12n.8
State v. Burris, 169 La. 520, 125 So. 580
State v. Saffron, 146 Wash. 202, 262 Pac. 970 12 n. 8

~ Steyart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1 2
Tomlinson v. United States, 93 F.2d 652 4,5
United States v. Bysozoski, 144 F. Supp. 806 4
United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 US

TT! eg APE re SAT noe Pe 3
United States v v. Echols, 253 Fed. 862. 4
United States v. Naples, 192 F. Supp. 23 8 n. 6
United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17 18, 19
United States v. Trinder, 1 F. Supp. 659 4
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 14 n. 10

Statutes: * ma
D. C. Code (Sapp. VIII, 1960) : N
Sec. 24-301 (b Tree 11
Sec. 24-301(d) Gh Fer Set

See. 24301 (e) 10

mex iii

—* Page

Hawaii Rev. Laws, 1955, § 258-38 _-13 n. 9

Tex. Acts 1937, 45th Leg., p. 1172, ch. 466 “dn. 3
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., art. 932b, § 1 (Supp.

1958) 5n.3

Miscellaneous:

Comment, Releasing Criminal Defendants .

(2834)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386410_0087%3A6. Public record. Not legal advice.