## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Bernard Heinlein and brothers David and Frank Walker for murder and sexual assault arising from a single incident.
- The government’s case depended heavily on one eyewitness, James Harding.
- Harding suffered from chronic alcoholism and an alcoholism-related memory disorder.
- Harding did not provide his first statement to police until three days after the incident.
- At trial, defense counsel exposed multiple inconsistencies and confusion in Harding’s testimony during cross-examination.
- Despite those inconsistencies, Harding consistently maintained that Heinlein and the Walker brothers were the perpetrators.
- The government presented circumstantial evidence that corroborated Harding’s account in several key respects.
- Arguing that Harding’s memory problems made him an unreliable witness, the defense moved for a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine Harding’s competency to testify.
- The trial judge observed Harding, found signs of chronic alcoholism but not legal incompetence, and denied the request for a psychiatric examination.
- The jury convicted Heinlein and the Walkers, and they appealed, arguing the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendants’ request for a psychiatric examination of the government’s sole eyewitness to determine whether his alcoholism-related memory disorder made him incompetent to testify?

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a psychiatric examination of Harding.
- The court concluded Harding’s alcoholism and memory problems primarily raised credibility questions for the jury, not a competency bar requiring exclusion of his testimony.
- The court affirmed the convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Witness competency is a preliminary determination for the trial judge; the core question is whether the witness can perceive events, recall them, communicate intelligibly, and understand the duty to testify truthfully.
- A psychiatric examination of a witness is not automatic upon request; whether to order one lies largely within the trial court’s discretion.
- Alcoholism, memory defects, inconsistent statements, or delayed reporting ordinarily affect the weight of testimony rather than admissibility, especially where the witness can testify coherently and is subject to cross-examination.
- Appellate review of competency and related evidentiary rulings is deferential; reversal is warranted only for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

United States v. Heinlein upheld the trial judge’s refusal to order a psychiatric examination of the prosecution’s key eyewitness, reasoning that the witness’s chronic alcoholism and impaired memory were matters for cross-examination and jury evaluation rather than grounds for finding him incompetent to testify; because the trial court acted within its discretion, the convictions were affirmed.


United States v. Heinlein, 490 F.2d 725 (1973)