Document: 357 U.S. 549 78 S.Ct. 1263 2 L.Ed.2d 1531 Bart Luis CARITATIVO, Petitioner,v.The PEOPLE OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA and Fred R. Dickson, Acting Warden. William Francis RUPP, Petitioner, v. DICKSON, Nos. 561, 562. Argued May 21, 1958. Decided June 30, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 79 13. Mr. George T. Davis, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner caritativo. A. J. Zirpoli, Ruff. Clarence Linn, respondents. Arlo E. Smith, respondent Dickson. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment are affirmed. Solesbee Balkcom, 339 9, 12, 70 457, 458, 94 L.Ed. 604. Justice HARLAN, concurring. 3 Being uncertain as to the full implications of 604, I prefer not rely on that decision in disposing these cases. 4 proceed premise Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from executing prisoner who has become insane after his conviction. Even so, do believe procedure established by California deal with such cases, evident recognition grave interest at stake, can upon records before us be said offend due process. 5 statute substance imposes warden mandatory duty make continuing check mental condition condemned prisoners notify district attorney whenever he finds grounds belief insane. Upon being so advised, it is unqualified submit issue prisoner's sanity jury judicial proceedings which entitled heard. given no right commence himself, or heard connection warden's initiating determination. Affidavits submitted disclose statutory carried out under regular pursuant prison psychiatric staff submits reports all soon their arrival prison, also special report within 20 days scheduled execution. 6 This procedure, my opinion, satisfies test fundamental fairness underlies At post-conviction stage capital case, seems me entirely proper trial preliminary determination responsible official 'good reason' exists Surely inappropriate lodge this responsibility hands warden, beyond others had most intimate relations with, best opportunity observe, prisoner. And having regard natural impelling impulse lawyers representing men stave off execution long possible, think constitutionally permissible conclude should made ex parte. It legitimate consideration take into account an adversary proceeding probable cause might open door interminable delaying maneuvers contrary sound administration justice. For example, unless Court were prepared accept conclusive representation reckoned submissions, challenged, would inevitably invite determine whether fact acted properly every occasion man claimed 7 Granting may refrain making good-faith determination, considerations kind suggested either us. affidavits show usual procedures followed here; psychiatrists unanimously concluded each petitioners was sane; personally observed conduct; 'neither reports, own observation, nor custodial any reason (petitioners) presently insane.' In addition, affirms intention institute required petitioners' if when them Petitioners controvert affirmations, but simply claim they denied process because without according further data. 8 absence challenge affirmations customary is, determined basis medical advice personal observations, allegation bad faith, cannot say solely declined, exercise discretion, consider professions sought behalf. 9 reasons concur Court's affirmance two judgments. 10 FRANKFURTER, whom DOUGLAS BRENNAN join, dissenting. 11 By its summary disposition extends disturbing where found did leaving private governor, victim part, death. Now appears depends fearful question life death, mere say-so state chooses pursue, more particularly part awaiting death claims insanity supervened have case put warden. There hardly comparable situation our constitutional scheme things great, executed, flimsy procedural protection, one asserting rudimentary side sits judgment. 12 both cases been convicted murder first degree sentenced Their convictions affirmed Supreme California. People Caritativo, 46 Cal.2d 68, 292 P.2d 513; Rupp, 41 371, 260 1. Subsequently, petitioned court habeas corpus review Quentin, confined execution, there refusal law present sanity. To denial petitions, Caritativo Teets, 48 A.C. (Minutes, 8, 1957); Rupp 49 Aug. 27, 1957), we granted certiorari. 355 853, 89, 62; 854, 91, 62. 13 Sections 3700 3701 Penal Code set forth determining person Section provides that, 'No judge, court, officer, other than Governor, suspend except delivered provided six succeeding sections, appeal taken.' 'If, delivery good defendant, insane, must call attention county situated, whose immediately file superior petition, stating conviction judgment, defendant believed asking inquired into. Thereupon once summoned impaneled, list county, persons hear inquiry.' 14 sections leading According petitions filed Court, spite 'there believe' appended briefs examined him psychiatrists, Furthermore, 'intends follow statutes (petitioners') * section Code, (they are) 15 Rupp's petition corpus, stated conclusions professed reaching benefit complete relating past history disease. detail shows continuous record disease extending over many years. refused allow psychiatrist, employed sister, examine sanity, let attorneys records. clear affidavit counsel permission declared 'rely members Caritativo.' now perfectly clear, decided Phyle Duffy, 334 431, 68 1131, 92 1494, remedy whatsoever fails perform duties imposed § 3701. Neither mandamus available His 'preliminary determination,' initial final rests willingness and, decides question, rationally appraise information relevant Beyond law, recourse right. reasonable sane, still, does choose attorney, will executed. Thus, even requirements met statute, way inquire inquiry only assurance done comes affidavits, introduced time respondents' Court. 16 Under what considers, manner considers it, common experience factor vital outcome legal inquiry, matters resting He parte, evidently true affording man, counsel, family, evidence arguments highly therefore essential considered, rational point view, law. relied almost exclusively examination independent psychiatrists. If behalf believed, purposes traversed, much pertinent least, fair pursued. 17 considering adequacy imporrant bear mind tolerate 1367. On contrary, beginning State, explicitly forbidden it. Cal.Stat.1850, c. 119, 615. adhered view deep Common Law parcel notions tolerable civilized society. explaining justifying profound abhorrence regarded, dissent 14, 459, Time discredited weakened force reasons. merely matter administrative grace, dispensed Federal Constitution. So important notified attorney. So, substantially, 502. Due Process Clause requires place tested proceeding. suggest formal hearing insist requirement some assuring give ear circumstances warrant submission accordance statutes. 18 based moral principles deeply embedded traditions feelings people itself protected Amendment, merits protection safeguards. What especially vindication wholly actions into, need vitally affected, inhere? supra, offended constituting governor 'apt tribunal' determining, parte proceedings, 'the solemn state's highest executive.' page 459. analogized function power pardon reprieve, powers traditionally confided chief executive State. appear whether, exercising function, declined statements defendant's however, 'solemn executive,' apparent why awesome power, surely parallel freedom seriousness consequences, today's entrusted still lower officials. reflection qualities wardens similar officials wielded scarcely assimilated executive's traditional reprieve. Finally, refuse tendered prisoners' behalf, expressly rested untested staff. 19 Audi alteram partem—hear side!—a demand insistently through centuries, command, spoken voice against governments, branch them—executive, legislative, judicial—whenever individual, however lowly unfortunate, asserts claim. beside turn meritorious. delay enforcement entailed. ought subordinated fear wanting observance professional responsibilities. somehow someone denied, hangs balance, far greater importance society, light denial, inconvenience property interests see Walker City Hutchinson, 352 112, 77 200, 178; Covey Town Somers, 351 141, 76 724, 100 1021; Mullane Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 306, 652, 865, how difference between As Holmes said, happily speaking United States Oppenheimer, 242 85, 87, 37 69, 61 161, 'It safeguards person, often rightly mentioned reverence, less those protect liability debt.' well act arbitrary judgment—for inherently speak allowed heard—in deciding about executed unworthy perchance add delays But better minor inconveniences, effective penal find difficulty minor, conscience single barbaric fact, though mentally unfit meet destiny.

Category: 0