Document: 407 U.S. 355 92 S.Ct. 2091 32 L.Ed.2d 791 Albert Delanor MUREL et al., Petitioners,v.BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT al. No. 70—5276. Argued March 28 and 29, 1972. Decided June 19, Karl G. Feissner, Andrew E. Greenwald, Hyattsville, Md., for petitioners. Henry R. Lord, Baltimore, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioners were convicted of various state crimes sentenced to fixed terms imprisonment. They then committed the Patuxent Institution in lieu sentence, an indeterminate period, pursuant Maryland Defective Delinquency Law, Md.Ann.Code, Art. 31B. sought federal habeas corpus, challenging on constitutional grounds criteria procedures that led their commitment, conditions confinement. contend, inter alia, statutory standard commitment is impermissibly vague, they are entitled put government burden proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at compulsory psychiatric examination prescribed by statute have assistance counsel invoke privilege against self-incrimination, being denied right treatment. The District Court relief sub nom. Sas v. Maryland, 295 F.Supp. 389 (Md.1969), Appeals affirmed Tippett 4 Cir., 436 F.2d 1153 (CA4 1971).1 We granted certiorari, 404 999, 567, 30 552 (1971), consider whether, what extent, guarantees invoked petitioners apply this kind process. After briefing oral argument, it now appears case does not present these issues manner warrants exercise certiorari jurisdiction Court. 2 1. Of four petitioners, one has been unconditionally released from confinement, other three subject criminal sentences yet expired, would bar release custody even if claims prevail.2 This fact, while necessarily dispositive all presented casts those different light, contemplated our original grant writ.3 Cf. McNeil Director, Institution, 245, 2083, 719. 3 2. Under decisions Baxstrom Herold, 383 107, 86 760, 15 620 (1966), Humphrey Cady, 405 504, 1048, 31 394 (1972), Jackson Indiana, 406 715, 1845, 435 petitioners' challenge Law should be considered relation criteria, procedures, treatment State makes available persons, 'defective delinquents,' informed statutes governing civil presently undergoing substantial revision, designed provide greater substantive procedural safeguards persons. Accordingly, seems particularly inopportune time comprehensive Law. In circumstances, writ certionari therefore dismissed as improvidently granted. 5 It so ordered. 6 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 7 special prison used incarceration delinquents.' Individuals who demonstrated 'persistent aggravated anti-social or behavior,' 'a propensity toward activity,' 'either such intellectual deficiency emotional unbalance' 'an actual danger society' may confined Patuxent. 31B, § (1971). initial determination defective delinquent made judicially and, after determination, there seek judicial redetermination status three-year intervals. Id., seq. One objectives supposedly inmates returned society. Director Daniels, 243 Md. 16, 31—32, 221 A.2d 397, (1966). Should receive treatment, prove inadequate return him society, inmate might well remain remainder his life. See 8 brought action aspects confinement relief, (Md.1969); affirmed, 1974); we petition certiorari. 552. Because I base my decision narrow grounds, do reach broader tendred 9 When moves deprive individual liberty, incarcerate indefinitely, place behind bars rest life, Federal Constitution requires meet more regorous than employed commit delinquents. specify necessary Patuxent, but determined need only its 'fair preponderance evidence.' E.g., Crews 245 174, 225 (1967); Termin 689, 658 (1966); Dickerson 235 668, 202 765 (1964); Purks State, 226 43, 171 726 (1961); Blizzard 218 384, 147 227 (1958); 334 506 1964); Walker Md.App. 206, 250 900 (1969). thus taken families deprived constitutionally protected liberty under same applicable run-of-the-mill automobile negligence actions.1 10 disapproved but, because felt insignificant, nonetheless held consistent with requirements Due Process Clause: 11 'We happier had (the persuasion) stated clear convincing rather evidence. However meaningful distinction us judges, however, greatly doubted jury's verdict ever influenced choice other. know juries quite flexibly, depending upon nature case. any event, knowledge, left state. A legislative (sic) proponderance standard, commitments mentally ill persons no history criminality, ought violation due process when firm foundation evaluation practical effects choice.' supra, F.2d, 1158—1159. 12 Judge Sobeloff dissented part stringent burden: 13 'The doubt indispensable both juvenile proceedings . 'it impresses trier fact necessity reaching subjective certitude facts issue.' 14 objections equal force delinquency hearings—indeed compelling latter class cases, since indefinite stake. commands jury must satisfied objective dispute, including truth alleged incidents relied psychiatrists recommendation.' 1165 (citations omitted). considering mandated burdens particular types attached significance varying standards did below. Speiser Randall, 357 513, 520—521, 78 1332, 1339, 1460 (1958), said: 16 'To experienced lawyers commonplace outcome lawsuit—and hence vindication legal rights—depends often how factfinder appraises disputed construction interpretation line precedents. Thus which assume importance fully great validity rule law applied. And important rights stake surrounding rights.' 17 see re Winship, 397 358, 368, 90 1068, 1074, 25 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). 18 reason continued concern over lawsuit—like factfinding process—is susceptible error making factual determinations. implicated lawsuit determines allocation degree consequently party whom risk errors will placed. applied reasoning Speiser, where First Amendment implicated: 19 'In kinds litigation plain lies decisive outcome. There always margin error, representing factfinding, parties take into account. Where interest transcending value—as defendant liberty—this reduced placing producing sufficiency first instance, persuading conclusion trial guilt doubt. man shall lose unless Government borne evidence guilt.' U.S., 525—526, S.Ct., 1342 20 Rosenbloom Metromedia, Inc., 403 91 1811, 29 296 Brennan, opinion joined Chief Blackmun, again principles reasoned interests defamation actions required plaintiffs extraordinary proof. Brennan said, libel cases erroneous plaintiff (is) most serious. (T)he possibility create strong impetus self-censorship cannot tolerate.' 50, 1823. concluded rigorous was safeguard involved: 21 hold private licensed radio station defamatory falsehood newscast relating involvement event public general sustained published knowledge false reckless disregard whether not.' 52, 1824. 22 dealt individual's personal characterized value' 525, 1342. There, 'proof doubt' 'because (an might) liberty' stigma conviction. 363, 1072. Woodby Immigration Naturalization Service, 385 276, 285, 87 483, 487, 362 23 case, basic right—their liberty—under inadequate. transcendent value. Without it, free expression privacy become largely meaningless. Yet right, using fails give sufficient weight involved. 24 answer say 'civil' requirement 'criminal' cases. Gault, 387 1, 1428, 527 (1967), specifically rejected looked instead involved proceedings. also Specht Patterson, 386 605, 1209, 326 (1967). Nor persuasive argue difficulty proving one's mind afforded benefit lesser Proving difficult many courts grapple each day.2 An confronted moreover, runs losing right—his liberty. Winship indicate value deprivation follow established precedent individuals lengthy—if indefinite—incarceration reverse judgment Petitioner Murel originally 1962 Creswell 1958; separate petitions corpus without hearing 1963. On appeal, consolidated similar remanded them hearing, 1964). deferred, agreement parties, pending related courts, culminated cert. Avey Boslow, 940, 307, 219 included Hayes Avey, Appeals' remand order. denied, 1971). At start nine years ago wholly attributable having expired. longer recently released, new charges. claims. suggest moot, controversy lacking, inappropriate test incidents, any, defective-delinquency confinements. Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 88 1556, 554 (1968); Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 83 373, 285 (1963); North Carolina Rice, 244, 248, 402, 405, 413 petitioner Murel's December 21, 1964, example, court instructed jury: evidence, you, come within phases definition delinquent.' Trial Transcript 70. instructions Creswell's 20, 1961, similar: governed normal rules satisfy you delinquent. If fair he delinquent, your minds balance, al duty find 'However, 75—76. record developed October 30, 1959, Charles Tippett, Court: informs once comes before asks cured whatever defect was, convince testimony so.' 40. Bruce J. Ennis, Staff Attorney New York Civil Liberties Union Mental Illness Project, testified follows Subcommittee Constitutional Rights Senate Committee Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st & 2d Sess., 277—278 (1969 1970): 'As mentioned earlier, possibly less dangerous healthy. five half year study 5,000 patients discharged mental hospitals showed 'patients prior arrest strikingly low rate release. Their over-all 1/12 population offense far lower, especially serious charges.' Another psychiatrist states 'not shred healthy.' diagnosis illness tells nothing about person diagnosed dangerous. Some dangerous, some not. Perhaps expert deciding ill, predicting dangerous? Sane people, too, legitimately inquired anything education, training experience renders adept behavior. Predictions behavior, matter them, incredibly inaccurate, growing concensus uniquely qualified predict behavior are, accurate predictions professionals. 'Because grossly unreliable, authorize predicted proved 'beyond mere (Footnotes omitted.)

Category: 8