Question: Was is the case Blakely v. Washington or Ford v. Wainwright that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed?

Context articles: Mozambique rule
Blakely v. Washington
Federal common law
R v Oickle
Louie L. Wainwright
Browne v Dunn
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
Cunningham v. California
Ford v. Wainwright
R v Swain

The Moçambique rule, or (to adopt an anglicised form of spelling) Mozambique rule, is a common law rule in private international law.
 The rule renders actions relating to title in foreign land, the right to possession of foreign land, and trespass to foreign land non-justiciable in common law jurisdictions.
 It was established in 1893 by the House of Lords decision in "British South Africa Co v. Companhia de Moçambique" [1893] AC 602.
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
 The landmark nature of the case (for good or ill) was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who "described the Court's decision as a 'Number 10 earthquake.'"
Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states.
 The United States is the only country to combine the creation of common law doctrines with a complete federalism, wherein the national supreme court has virtually no power to review state court decisions to determine whether the state courts have followed state laws.
 The High Court of Australia is sometimes said to have federal common law, but because all state and territorial courts are directly appealable to the High Court, this is indistinguishable from a general common law.
 In contrast, the United States Supreme Court has effectively barred the creation of federal common law in areas traditionally under the authority of state courts.
 Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.
R v Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the common law rule for confessions. Though the "Charter" remains in force for confessions made while in custody, the common law rule still applies in all circumstances.
 The majority outlined factors to determine whether a confession is voluntary.
Louie Lee Wainwright (born September 11, 1923) was Secretary of the Florida Division of Corrections from 1962 to 1987, more than a quarter of a century.
 He is most famous for being the named respondent in two U.S. Supreme Court cases: "Gideon v. Wainwright" in which indigents are guaranteed an attorney, and "Ford v. Wainwright", in which the Court approved the common law rule prohibiting the execution of the insane.
 Time Magazine called the "Gideon" decision one of the ten most important legal events of the 1960s.
 He also appeared as the respondent in a number of habeas corpus petitions that reached the Supreme Court level during his long tenure in office, making "Wainwright" one of the most familiar names to students of habeas corpus law.
Browne v. Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67, H.L. is a famous British House of Lords decision on the rules of cross examination.
 From this case came the common law rule known as the "Browne v Dunn rule" or "The rule in Browne v Dunn".
 The rule in "Browne v Dunn" basically entails that a cross examiner cannot rely on evidence that is contradictory to the testimony of the witness without putting the evidence to the witness in order to allow them to attempt to justify the contradiction.
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (c. 31) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability.
 The result of the Third Report of the Law Reform Committee, the Act was introduced to Parliament as the Occupiers' Liability Bill and granted the Royal Assent on 6 June 1957, coming into force on 1 January 1958.
 The Act unified several classes of visitors to property and the duty of care owed to them by the occupier, as well as codifying elements of the common law relating to this duty of care.
 It also covered the duty owed to parties to a contract entering the property and ways of excluding the liability for visitors.
 The Act introduced an element of liability for landlords who failed to maintain their properties and were as a result responsible for the injury of a non-tenant, something counter to the previous common law rule in English law.
 The Act is still valid law, and forms much of the law relating to occupiers' liability in English law along with the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), held that the rule first announced in "Apprendi v. New Jersey", 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law.
 In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
 There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term.
 Under the "Apprendi" rule, as explained in "Blakely v. Washington", 542 U.S. 296 (2004) , any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
 In "People v. Black", the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under "Blakely", the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under the DSL.
 In "Cunningham", the U.S. Supreme Court overruled "Black", ruling that "Blakely" applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme.
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.
R v Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on certain rights of the mentally ill in their criminal defence.
 The case concerned a constitutional challenge of the common law rule permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of an accused's insanity and section 542(2) of the "Criminal Code", which allowed for the indeterminate detention of an accused who is found not guilty by reason of "insanity".
 The Court held that both the common law rule and the Code provision were unconstitutional.
 As a result, the Court created a new common law rule that was constitutional, and Parliament created new laws of what to do with individuals who were found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder.
 The parties to the case were the appellant, Swain, the respondent, the Crown, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review of Ontario, the Canadian Disability Rights Council, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the Canadian Association for Community Living.