Case 1:81-cr-00306-PLF Document 314 Filed 04/11/11 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 81-306 (PLF)

:
v. :
:
JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR. :

GOVERNMENT’S 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 government’s 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.1 Mr. Hinckley has not carried that burden.

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

1
24 D.C.C. §(k)(3) places the burden on Mr. Hinckley to prove his entitlement to the
terms of release.
 Case 1:81-cr-00306-PLF Document 314 Filed 04/11/11 Page 2 of 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.

Hinckley’s mental condition. Since the last hearing in July, 2008, Mr. Hinckley’s circumstances

have changed considerably. Mr. Hinckley has a new doctor in his mother’s 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 3 of 3

additional visits while the parties prepare for the hearing to commence.2 A framework is necessary

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. Zeno

Thomas E. Zeno
D.C. Bar No. 348623
Assistant United States Attorney
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
202-514-6957
Thomas.Zeno@usdoj.gov

Sarah T, Chasson
Sarah T. Chasson
D.C. Bar No. 448996
Assistant United States Attorney
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
202-514-7248
Sarah.T.Chasson@usdoj.gov

2
A limited number of properly timed trips provides continuity for Mr. Hinckley while
ensuring the experts are not presented with a moving target of late breaking events, as has
happened in the past.