United States v. Heinlein
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
490 F.2d 725 (1973)
Bernard Heinlein and brothers David and Frank Walker (defendants) were prosecuted for murder and sexual assault based largely on the testimony of James Harding, the sole eyewitness, who suffered from an alcoholism-related memory disorder and did not report the crime for three days. Although cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in Harding's account, he never wavered in identifying the defendants as guilty, and circumstantial evidence corroborated his testimony. The trial judge denied the defense's motion for a psychiatric competence examination of Harding after observing that Harding showed signs of chronic alcoholism but not incompetence, and the jury convicted the defendants.
Whether a trial judge abuses discretion by denying a defense motion for a psychiatric competence examination of the sole eyewitness where cross-examination revealed inconsistencies but the witness remained consistent on the ultimate fact of guilt.