A federal court judge cannot impose a conditional release on a defendant who had not been in a psychiatric treatment facility, ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. If a defendant was not hospitalized, a release is just that, a release, with no strings attached.

Defendant Baker was indicted in federal court for mailing a threatening communication. Baker waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a psychiatric evaluation. The examiner found that Baker had a serious psychotic disorder involving delusions of persecution at the time he committed the offense. Baker was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to the Attorney General for assignment to a mental health facility. Another psychiatric evaluation found that his condition had "substantially resolved."

At a hearing the results of the second report were presented. The court ruled that Baker's condition was "subject to rapid change." It ordered him released into the custody of his mother and brother, with the condition that he live with one of them and continue receiving regular mental health treatment. Baker then appealed the terms.

The Fourth Circuit Court found that in granting a conditional release, the district court judge "plainly erred." The subsection of the federal criminal statute relied on by the district judge "simply does not authorize the district court to order a conditional release." The language of the subsection "is not in any way an implicit grant of discretionary authority." Baker was never hospitalized; had he been, a conditional release might have been appropriate.