United States v. Randall B. Husar

Citations: 859 F.2d 1494; 273 U.S. App. D.C. 347; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14692; 1988 WL 114404Docket: 87-3076, 88-3020

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; November 1, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Randall B. Husar appeals the district court's judgment committing him to the custody of the Attorney General after being found not guilty by reason of insanity for destroying government property, specifically damaging a case housing the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. Initially deemed incompetent, Husar was arraigned after regaining competency and was acquitted on June 3, 1987, due to insanity. Following this, he was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital for evaluation. Testimony from mental health professionals indicated that Husar posed a danger to society if released. Consequently, the district court determined he did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that release would not pose a substantial danger to others, leading to his commitment to the Attorney General.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 4243, the Attorney General is tasked with arranging Husar’s confinement and treatment. The Attorney General's office communicated with Colorado mental health officials regarding the potential transfer of custody, contingent upon the state assuming responsibility for Husar’s care and treatment. The release provisions stipulate that a certificate must confirm that Husar no longer presents a substantial risk of harm before any release or conditional release is considered. Additionally, annual reports on his mental condition are required to be submitted to the committing court. The terms for Husar's commitment and potential release were acknowledged as acceptable by Colorado officials.

Colorado officials accepted the treatment terms for Husar, which aligned with statutory requirements. Husar's November 1987 Motion for Release from Federal Custody was deemed moot by the government, which indicated arrangements for his transfer to Colorado were underway. Husar objected to federal conditions imposed on his custody, particularly the ongoing reporting requirements and the Attorney General's right to a federal discharge hearing under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4243(f). He argued these conditions maintained federal control, preventing his motion from being moot and asserted he wasn't claiming recovery to justify discharge.

On January 29, 1988, the district court noted Husar's transfer to Colorado and dismissed his motion as moot. On appeal, Husar contended he deserved full release from federal custody and that his offense did not constitute "serious damage to property," thus requiring a lower standard of proof concerning his mental health.

The court affirmed the Attorney General's authority to set terms for Husar's placement in Colorado, which state officials accepted. The statute mandates federal oversight of insanity acquittees even in state custody, requiring annual mental health reports to the federal district court and a certificate from the state facility director for potential discharge. The court emphasized Congress's intent to maintain stringent federal standards for discharge, regardless of the acquittee's state relocation. It confirmed that the communication to Colorado officials was consistent with federal law. The district court did not err in determining Husar's actions indicated a potential danger, justifying his classification under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4243(d).

The two district court orders submitted by Husar are affirmed. Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4247(e), the facility director must prepare annual reports regarding a hospitalized individual's mental condition and provide recommendations on their continued hospitalization, submitting these reports to the ordering court and others as directed. According to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4243(f), if the director determines that an acquitted individual has sufficiently recovered to no longer pose a substantial risk, a certificate must be filed with the court, which will then order discharge or hold a hearing to assess the individual's release. The court's assessment must align with specified standards, potentially resulting in immediate or conditional discharge. The federal standards for acquittees are similar to those in Colorado. Although the government argues Husar's appeal is not ripe due to a lack of discharge request, Husar's objections to his confinement conditions warrant judicial review. Legislative history indicates Congress aimed to maintain federal jurisdiction over acquittees, ensuring consistent treatment throughout the criminal justice process and safeguarding public welfare by balancing the needs of mentally ill offenders with public safety.