Hinckley Visit Memo
-
Upload
emily-babay -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Hinckley Visit Memo
-
8/7/2019 Hinckley Visit Memo
1/3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 81-306 (PLF)
:v. :
:
JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR. :
GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO INTERIM RELIEF
The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, respectfully opposes the request for interim relief and submits the following
in support of its opposition.
ARGUMENT
Although he has had nearly two years to prepare a plan for his continued transition into the
community before the end of his twelfth home visit, Mr. Hinckley has, so far, presented nothing for
the Court to consider or for the governments experts to evaluate. Instead, after he finished the last
visit authorized by the Court's pre-existing Order, Mr. Hinckley filed a motion requesting an
unlimited number of visits, until an unspecified time in the future, in the hope that the Hospital might
be able to recommend a plan for his continued transition to his mother's hometown in or about
June. Mr. Hinckley has the burden to convince the Court that he is entitled to this expansion of his
release. Mr. Hinckley has not carried that burden.1
The government objects to the request for interim relief. As an initial matter, we note that,
although Mr. Hinckley's motion is styled a Joint motion with the Hospital for relief, the motion
24 D.C.C. (k)(3) places the burden on Mr. Hinckley to prove his entitlement to the1
terms of release.
Case 1:81-cr-00306-PLF Document 314 Filed 04/11/11 Page 1 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Hinckley Visit Memo
2/3
does not satisfy the requirements to be considered a Hospital-sponsored request for release pursuant
to 24 D.C.Code 501(e). The Motion does not contain the required certification by the
superintendent and does not appear to have been approved by the Hospital's Review Board. The
Motion is, therefore, correctly viewed as solely Mr. Hinckley's motion to amend the conditions of
his release under 24 D.C. Code 501(k).
Mr. Hinckley offers no basis to grant him the unlimited number of continued release-visits
that he requests. It has been nearly three years since the Court last heard testimony about Mr.
Hinckleys mental condition. Since the last hearing in July, 2008, Mr. Hinckleys circumstances
have changed considerably. Mr. Hinckley has a new doctor in his mothers hometown; Mr. Hinckley
has moved to new hospital surroundings; Mr. Hinckley has new family issues; and Mr. Hinckley
soon will have a new treating doctor at the Hospital. The issues raised by these changed
circumstances warrant serious consideration to determine whether Mr. Hinckley may now pose a
threat to himself or others.
Mr. Hinckley and the Hospital have known since the Court issued its Order of June 16, 2009,
that a review would be required after twelve visits. Notwithstanding this inevitable deadline, neither
filed a motion to expand Mr. Hinckley's conditions of release until after the twelfth visit had ended.
This delay is Mr. Hinckley's own decision, and it does not provide a basis for interim relief.
The government requests a status hearing to establish both the elements of Mr. Hinckley's
new proposed transition plan (assuming that the Hospital, in fact, files such a Plan), and a realistic
timetable for a hearing about that plan. Once this timetable is established, the government will be
happy to revisit the question of whether Mr. Hinckley should be granted a limited number of
Case 1:81-cr-00306-PLF Document 314 Filed 04/11/11 Page 2 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Hinckley Visit Memo
3/3
additional visits while the parties prepare for the hearing to commence. A framework is necessary2
to avoid the promulgation of poorly-defined plans presented in the middle of any scheduled hearing,
as has been the case in the past. There is no reason for such confusion before the next hearing.
Moreover, the government will require significant time to prepare for the hearing once the
Hospital creates a release plan. The government, and its experts, have years of medical records to
obtain and analyze. There are also more than fifteen witnesses to interview. There has been ample
time for Mr. Hinckley and the Hospital to prepare a clear transition plan. No interim relief should
be granted until that clear plan has been prepared.
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD C. MACHEN JR.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: Thomas E. ZenoThomas E. ZenoD.C. Bar No. 348623Assistant United States Attorney555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. [email protected]
Sarah T, Chasson
Sarah T. ChassonD.C. Bar No. 448996Assistant United States Attorney555 Fourth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530202-514-7248
A limited number of properly timed trips provides continuity for Mr. Hinckley while2
ensuring the experts are not presented with a moving target of late breaking events, as has
happened in the past.
Case 1:81-cr-00306-PLF Document 314 Filed 04/11/11 Page 3 of 3