Crisp v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Per Curiam. This is the second time that this application for leave to appeal from a redetermination that the applicant is a defective delinquent has been before this Court. See Crisp v. Director, 231 Md. 616 , 189 A. 2d 117 . Following the remand, a determination of the applicant’s indigency was duly made and counsel who had represented him at the hearing was appointed to represent him on this application for leave to appeal and the transcript of the testimony at the hearing was ordered to be prepared and filed, and the cost thereof and other costs were ordered to be paid by Baltimore County.

The application filed by the applicant’s counsel assigns as a ground for allowing an appeal that the verdict was inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. Attached to the application as an exhibit is a copy of a letter from the applicant to his counsel which apparently sets up two other contentions: (a) that none of the applicant’s record offered in evidence at the original determination of his defective delinquency could be used again at his redetermination hearing; and (b) that both of the doctors who testified at his second hearing untruthfully stated that he had been taken before the staff of ten or twelve people. The State’s witnesses in this case were Dr. Sigmund Manne, a psychologist on the staff of the Patuxent Institution, and Dr. ⁵⁹⁰ Harold M. Boslow, the Director, who is a psychiatrist. Each of them testified quite fully.

The only other witness was the applicant himself. Though the applicant