Document: 407 U.S. 245 92 S.Ct. 2083 32 L.Ed.2d 719 Edward Lee McNEIL, Petitioner,v.DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. No. 71—5144. Argued April 20, 1972. Decided June 19, Syllabus Petitioner, who was given a five-year sentence, referred under an ex parte order to the Patuxent Institution for examination determine whether he should be committed indefinite term as defective delinquent. In this proceeding post-conviction relief challenges his confinement after expiration of that sentence violative due process. Respondent contends petitioner's continued is justified until petitioner cooperates with examining psychiatrists and thus facilitates assessment condition. The trial court denied relief, holding person confined Maryland's Defective Delinquency Law may detained statutory procedures report have been completed, regardless or not criminal has expired. Held: in circumstances case, it denial process continue hold on basis committing him observation without procedural safeguards commensurate long-term commitment, Jackson v. Indiana, 406 715, 1845, 435; affording those further detention cannot analogous civil contempt any other reason. Pp. 247—252. Reversed. E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Washington, D.C., petitioner. Henry R. Lord, Baltimore, Md., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 McNeil convicted two assaults 1966, sentenced five years' imprisonment. Instead prison, sentencing examination, institution indeterminate Md.Ann.Code, Art. 31B (1971). No such determination yet made, expired, continues. State refused cooperate psychiatrists, they unable make valid condition, consequently indefinitely succeeded making its evaluation. He claims when lost power him, violates rights Fourteenth Amendment. We agree. 2 * Maryland provides felony, certain misdemeanors, period, if judicially determined 'defective delinquent.' A delinquent defined 3 'an individual who, by demonstration persistent aggravated antisocial behavior, evidences propensity toward activity, found either intellectual deficiency emotional unbalance, both, clearly demonstrate actual danger society so require treatment, appropriate, reasonably safe terminate treatment.' 31B, § 5. 4 Defective-delinquency proceedings are ordinarily instituted immediately conviction sentencing; also defendant served part prison term. §§ 6(b), 6(c).1 event, begins prisoner psychiatric examination. 6(d). required submit within fixed period time. 7(a).2 If recommends then hearing must promptly held, jury requested prisoner, 8. committed, commitment operates suspend previously imposed. 9(b). 5 Murel Baltimore City Criminal Court, 355, 2091, 791, several prisoners had delinquents sought challenge various aspects criteria resulted their commitment; we granted certiorari case together one, consider these scheme. For reasons decline today reach questions, see Murel, supra. But presents much more stark simple claim. never delinquent, no cause control defective-delinquency hearing. His rests wholly preparation That adversary hearing, but judicial there 'reasonable believe Department Delinquent.'3 Petitioner does Court issue first instance, State's filed petition state ground, inter alia, pursuant 27, 645A. '(a) Section 6, Article purpose determining completed expired.' App. 35—36. Appeals leave appeal. 37—38. certiorari, 404 999, 568, 30 552 II 6 asserts confine indefinitely, ever obtaining warranted. advances distinct arguments support 7 A. First, merely observation, need surrounded (such hearing) appropriate final delinquency. Were limited duration brief argument might some force. 'for observation' six years, respondent's theory reason likely will released. fact rest designed authorize observation. 8 recently rejected similar 435 (1972), mentally incompetent stand charges. characterize temporary, justify reduced substantive safeguards. held because permanent practical effect, commitment. Id., at 723—730, S.Ct., 1850—1854. half equally relevant here. properly regarded short-term purpose, respondent suggests, lesser same token, strictly limited. '(D)ue requires nature bear reasonable relation which committed.' 738, 1858. Just principle limits permissible length account incompetence trial, observation.' set precise time limit here; noteworthy, however, statute itself maximum months. While courts apparently construed permit extensions time, n. 2, supra, nevertheless initial legislative judgment useful benchmark. sufficient note anticipating easier examine than today. circumstances, 9 B. second advanced relies claim himself prevented from that, refusing talk them evaluating made impossible go forward evidence Thus, argued, contempt; can bring about talking induce cooperation confining him. 10 right Fifth Amendment withhold cooperation, putting one side, fatal flaw argument. contempt, behaved manner amounts contempt. At could ascertained conduct willful, manifestation mental illness, fairly responsible. Robinson California, 370 660, 82 1417, 758 (1962). Civil coercive nature, justification lacks present ability comply. Maggio Zeitz, 333 56, 68 401, L.Ed. 476 (1948). Moreover, would provide forum resolution Finally, were explicitly premised finding what limitations Due Process Clause places power. contours traced It enough confined, potentially life, although procedure comports analogy failure kind. 11 C. suggests probably most noncooperators are. Hence, only purposes penalizing underlying Law. proves too much. staff members prepared conclude, silence observations over true On theory, long ready court, delinquency gone forward. III 12 presently lawful authority confinement. having longer class persons eligible Accordingly, entitled below reversed, mandate shall forthwith. 13 14 DOUGLAS, concurring. 15 This action denied, decision. here writ granted. 567, 553. I concur reversing below. 16 tried assault public officer intent rape. took offenses. prior record. judge asked evaluation accused, though neither side raised suggested issues. medical examined recommended considered treatment Institution, agency. 17 'not Hagerstown1 and, modifying suspending ordered Patuxent. Under law felony misdemeanors delinquent' 5, 18 staff—which includes psychiatrist, psychologist, physician—shall 'state findings' written court. 7(a). And provided transferred Patuxent, question remain 'until . said regard last expired.'2 6(e) (Supp.1971). 19 normally entails interviews evaluation, psychological tests, sociological social work studies, review past history records, including police, juvenile, penal, hospital records. Personal include series questions elicit record, behavior individual. 20 shows classified retained custody original full credit 7(a) says counsel jury. 21 McNeil, beyond years sentenced, declared delinquent.'3 hand cleared, least separate occasions tests questions. Nor received interim rehabilitative training. State, indeed, intends keep refuses examinations.4 22 McNeil's refusal questioning quixotic; based silent. remains whatsoever activity hope unless surrenders against self-incrimination.5 23 prohibition compulsory self-incrimination applicable States Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 1489, 653. protection extends answer where 'has apprehend direct answer.' Hoffman United States, 341 479, 486, 71 814, 818, 95 1118; Spevack Klein, 385 511, 87 625, 574. setting goal pregnant both potential immediate danger. To labeled delinquent,' demonstrated 'persistent behavior' 'a activity.' 24 repeatedly interrogated crime many alleged incidents going back spohomore year high school. One member interviewing reported: 'He adamantly vehemently denies, despite police reports, involved offense'; 'Further revealed stolen shoes insisted did know .'; 'but tenth grade caught taking milk cookies cafeteria'; consistently denies guilt all offenses'; purse snatching'; adamant insisting version offense available discussed him'; into consideration juvenile use drugs narcotics'; '. explained help understand why thing avail.' Brief 36 43. 25 Some appeal seeking relief. Concessions confessions obtained retrial vitiate privilege every 'link chain connect' crime. U.S., 13, 1496. Whether grant immunity give needed context irrelevant, advised laws. 26 results severe sanctions, contrary constitutional guarantee. 27 diagnose matter how information have, talks. result receives indefinitely. 28 Second, receiving tier treatment. 29 Third, talks portion sentence. talk, continues run expires kept indeed record 20% inmates serving expired sentences paroled between 1955 1965, 46% sentences. Whatever called—whether criminal—the Self-Incrimination same. As re Gault, 387 49—50, 1428, 1455—1456, 527 threat whenever deprivation liberty;' whatever name institution, will. 31 elementary or, here, opportunity heard. Specht Patterson, 386 605, 1209, 326; Humphrey Cady, 405 504, 1048, 394. discharged it. always released custody; since 1971 prohibited months 6(c), amended 1971. 98% referrals conviction. Tr. Oral Arg. 27; Respondent's 33. originally submitted months, before whichever later occurs. Since 1971, three 7(a), extension allowable noncooperative resists Musgrove, 241 Md. 521, 217 A.2d 247 (1966); Mullen Director, Md.App. 120, 250 281 (1969). 5; 6(b): request 'on knowledge suspicion presence person.' appears issued sua sponte; sentencing, own officer, turn referral subject reductions good industrial agricultural work, satisfactory progress education vocational courses. 700 MrNeil eiglible parole one-fourth little year. referral, Act date occurred. (1957 ed., Supp.1966). An amendment effective July occurs first. Detention courtimposed Communist China 'public security organs (have) impose well administer punishment' 'the discretionary extend imprisonment sentences.' Shao-chuan Leng, 34 (1967). District Dr. Boslow, Director testified: '(The Court) Take diagnosis fails, let us say, 100 per cent, cooperate; won't anybody, undergo participate, don't think gets group therapy. '(Dr. Boslow) sir. do absolutely nothing take advantage be. 'He, therefore, assuming valid, administration respect supportable, unclassified? Is correct? things, yes.' stated provocative searching study Virginia, 'Certainly, enjoyed free citizens, burden showing restrictions necessary preservation fall upon officials. Widespread, sweeping denials freedom tolerated. Ideally, executive branches government decided extent liberty denied. organ better suited legislature penological developments few decades restrictive practices command absence, decide balance competing interests effected compromise fiat specific guarantees traditional notions 'hands-off doctrine' place. judiciary functions arbiter; responsibility educating fails act, legitimize status quo. conditions blunts success important inquiries, impedes flow encourages abuse.' Hirschkop & Millemann, Unconstitutionality Prison Life, 55 Val.L.Rev. 795, 835—837

Category: 3