Document: 344 U.S. 561 73 S.Ct. 391 97 L.Ed. 549 UNITED STATES ex rel. SMITHv.BALDI, Superintendent, Philadelphia County Prison. No. 31. Re-Argued Oct. 13—14, 1952. Decided Feb. 9, 1953. Mr. Thomas D. McBride, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. Randolph C. Ryder, Lancaster, respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted murder and sentenced to death by State Pennsylvania. The crime committed in January 1948. without counsel when he appeared arraignment on February 25, presiding judge asked a lawyer present courtroom advise petitioner how plead. This lawyer, who knew nothing about petitioner, advised him enter plea 'not guilty.' On September 21, 1948, after several continuances, District Attorney together with petitioner's state-named counsel, had been appointed arraignment, sentencing court, agreed that 'guilty' would be substituted earlier done so could its evidence first degree murder, then have additional time which procure out-of-state at expense support contention insane. put At hearings held October 28, November 5, defense introduced tending show court not satisfied insane either or any thereafter, 4, 1949, death. 2 While docket entries § shown trial record differ from notes indictment, as whether found guilty did find until difference is immaterial. According written longhand 192 F.2d page 569, entry noting adjudication proper order. It appears inserted between stating withdrawn his entered 'additional testimony (had been) heard under advisement.' If contested out-of-order date '2/4/49' removed, indictment agree read '(A)fter hearing both Commonwealth defendant * adjudged degree.'1 Since made following opportunity further insanity, it way binding even persuasive. sentence insanity final adjudication. 3 An appeal taken this judgment full Supreme Court where asserted an abuse discretion imposed circumstances case. conviction affirmed. 362 Pa. 222, 66 A.2d 764. No effort secure writ certiorari review affirmance. thereafter filed petition habeas corpus United States Eastern denied ground within jurisdiction proceeding instituted. Smith v. Warden Prison, 87 F.Supp. 339. denial affirmed Appeals Third Circuit. 181 847. decision A entertained merits there no due process law 'was convinces us relator charged pleaded death.' 364 93, 119, 71 107, 120. Immediately our timely certiorari, 340 812, 40, 95 597, second application dismissed all issues presented before 96 100, 105. Circuit 540. We granted 343 903, 72 639, 1322. petitions involved proceedings identical questions are now, complete appellate well those corpus—were Appeals. 4 point we consider question effect given Both Court, 105, Appeals, 540, 544, concluded cases means except denied. As doubt, primarily determine effect. conclusion spelled out more fully opinions Brown Allen, 443, 397, 437, answer short. Our substantive significance. 5 next process. In substance, issue presents (1) should allowed plead having formally adjudicated mental competency (2) permitted capital offense affording technical services psychiatrist. 6 institution patients New York three years prior commission charged. disease diagnosed dementia praecox. After four months discharged recovered. Later, voluntarily himself General Hospital fear might harm someone. Ten days later released because 'no (his) psychosis.' These facts were 1949. 7 contending Pennsylvania convicting sanity, points language used indicating, view, holding sanity based guilty, instead evidence. There stated admission condition went appropriate penalty.2 contentions, however, succeeding paragraph said: 8 'If defendant's purpose enabling assess punishment, raised substantial doubt Smith's duty moved withdraw insanity' entered. motion exception decided denying abused discretion.' 113, 117. 9 furthermore maintains violates guilty' snap advice court-designated never laid eyes consequence off-hand contends lost only chance require tried outset jury.3 10 Assuming such fact lost, does follow pointed above, emphasized changing familiar case, still adequate substitute client's competency. When furnished cannot say error advising future unconstitutional ample rectify error, if was, insanity. claim can hardly predicated upon failure move. 11 brings point: That assistance psychiatrist necessary afford counsel. trial-court reveals psychiatrist, examined court's request, testified crime. addition, October, two other psychiatrists called testify competence. same day also various reports letters dealing history. determined sanity. asserts pretrial State. Although here states refused appoint make examination. has constitutional mandate. See McGarty O'Brien, Cir., 188 151, 155. shown, court. Psychiatrists testified. suffices. 12 Petitioner's argument man may executed proceeds assumption Pennsylvania, announced State, provides protection against execution 13 'It principle imbedded common law—and administer Pennsylvania—that person tried, executed. 14 'A prisoner (like instant case) hands case judiciary intervene save execution. power statutes law.' Ashe, 116—119, 118. Phyle Duffy, 334 431, 68 1131, 92 1494; Solesbee Balkcom, 339 70 457, 94 604. 15 refusing hold plenary determination refuted pages 460—465, 409—411. 16 received judges panel, prosecution others fair accorded 'unless special prevail, lowest federal reverse highest state disposed specifically setting forth reasons law, allegations fail disclose departed requirements. case.' Baldi, 103. 17 view accords supra. records judicial hearing, canvassed, violate 18 Affirmed. 19 For separate FRANKFURTER see 437. 20 FRANKFURTER, whom BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 21 Ever since ancestral emerged darkness early barbaric days, postulate Western civilization taking life hand murder. But nature operation mind elusive grasp understanding basis formulating standards criminal responsibility determining particular greatly troubled medicine than century. Glueck, Mental Disorder Criminal Law (1925); Abrahamsen, Crime Human Mind (1944); Overholser, Psychiatrist (to published April 1953 Harcourt Brace & Co.) (particularly Chapter II). To day, conflict controversy regarding these problems bedevil administration justice. See, e.g., Fisher States, 328 463, 1318, 90 1382. deep concern engendered England just John Straffen strikingly disclosed unsatisfactory law. Times, July 22, 1952, p. 3; 23, 4; 24, 26, 7; August 30, pp. 2, 5; 1, 12, Economist, 494; Lancet, 239. (Especially comments subsequent action Home Secretary, followed dismissal Straffen's Appeal Regina (1952) Q.B. 911.) 22 abstract controversial subject clear unassailable. embedded executed.' 116, fallibilities human body inevitable one doubtful, properly rejected. want sustained merely finding sane raise gravest doubts. Fourteenth Amendment scrutinize procedure failed became forfeit. sustain safeguard historical procedural sense incontrovertible scope Due Process Clause Amendment. 23 One Judges constituted majority dissenters appreciate tangled skein complexities hopelessly caught. And I Chief Judge Biggs, id., 549, being left unrelievable feeling disquietude amounts accused deprived establish less deprivation resulted web woven defendant, unwittingly, courts 24 am another reason, itself me conclusive, why affirm below. new decisive factor, here, requires reconsideration disposition came knowledge court-appointed expert, professional witness whose relied, committed, incurable 'any insight.' brought notice affidavit challenged respondent, averred 'this intellectual deterioration evidenced clinical level January, 1951.' expert's report His disability known 1951, they respectively ruled Even uninformed know kind illness set overnight but culmination long Indeed, medical history, sketchy is, revealed demonstrates gradual manner developed. extent vitiates worth expert matter notice. allow victim testimony, which, event, into go reassessment, rejection constitute gross 25 need equity causes appear disposition, certainly governed rules fairness enforced equity. cause should, therefore, remanded here. 26 reach issue. Therefore do now decide raises must first, principles exhaustion, simply bearing already exhausted—that inadequate. former date, Smith, 223, '(w)hether unimportant proceedings.' 112, 116. 'When admitted prisoner's relating condition, entered, providing data use penalty defendant.' ask test arraignment. 'The (lunacy commitment) had, indicted shall, lunatic, jury lawfully impanelled purpose, if, indicted, shall direct findings recorded, proceed aforesaid.' Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. 1352. Whether will depends judge. He defer inquest trying indictment. Webber Commonwealth, 119 A. 427; Scovern, 292 140 611; Cilione, 293 208, 142 216; Iacobino, 319 65, 178 823.

Category: 0