Court Opinion

ID: 9597426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:58:32.57052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:43.498366
License: Public Domain

Opinion by Special
Justice GREEN,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
While I fully concur with the majority opinion as to the merits of this appeal, I feel compelled to extend the analysis in light of the dissents filed herewith. Further, I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion as relates to whether the Governor’s power under Ky. Const. § 110(3) extended to the appointment of Judge John Knox Mills as a special Justice.
I. THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL
First, it is my view that the Attorney General’s concern for the “independence” of the grand jury is a red herring not at all implicated by the majority opinion. The majority opinion does not in any way “put *410its imprimatur on a governor’s scheme” of any kind, real or imagined. The grand jury is free to make such reports as are permitted by law,1 and no one, including the Attorney General, has offered any basis for thinking that an indictment of any particular person facilitates the purported objective of disclosing government wrongdoing.
Second, the definition of the word “pardon” includes amnesty. Justice Cooper’s dissent lists a number of federal amnesties that were granted pursuant to the pardon power, which would seem to negate any argument that an amnesty is not permitted. No one has cited a case holding that the pardon power, without some specific limitation, does not include amnesty. In the briefs, both parties referred to events surrounding Governor Bramlette at the close of the civil war as supporting their respective positions. Both parties, and the dissents herein, fail to note that those circumstances were governed by provisions of the constitution not implicated herein. At that time, the pardon power was governed by the Constitution of 1850, which provided in Article III as follows:
§ 10. He shall have power to remit fines and forfeitures, grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment. In cases of treason, he shall have 'power to grant reprieves until the end of the next session of the General Assembly, in which the power of pardoning shall be vested; but he shall have no power to remit the fees of the clerk, sheriff, or Commonwealth’s Attorney, in penal or criminal cases.
(emphasis added). Since treason (see Article VIII, § 2) was involved, the Governor’s power was limited, and there is no similar limitation on any other pardon save where impeachment is involved. Thus, the actions of Governor Bramlette say nothing about this case or any other ordinary pardon case.
Third, and most important, is the fact that both dissenting opinions erroneously suggest that a pardon cannot precede indictment. Neither cite any authority for this proposition, and the cases relied upon for other propositions make it obvious that pardons both can and have preceded indictment. The 19th century view of the pardon power on which the dissents rely was first announced by Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150, 7 Pet. 150, 8 L.Ed. 640 (1833). In that case Wilson had been pardoned for the death sentence portion of a conviction and there was confusion as to the application of the pardon to other lessor offenses. Wilson was asked if he relied on the pardon and advised the court that he had nothing to say. The court did not reach the question of the meaning of the pardon, because it held that the pardon must, like other defenses, be formally pleaded. The historical view of the pardon power was described as follows:
A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official, act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the court. It is a constituent part of the judicial system, that the judge sees only with judi*411cial eyes, and knows nothing respecting any particular case, of which he is not informed judicially. A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown, and cannot be acted on.
Id. at 160-61, 8 L.Ed. 640. The holding in Wilson was that the pardon had to be pleaded, not that acceptance was required, and this proposition was long ago rejected by this court. Jackson v. Rose, 223 Ky. 285, 3 S.W.2d 641 (1928). Relying on dicta in Wilson and Marshall’s view of the nature of a pardon, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently held, in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, 35 S.Ct. 267, 59 L.Ed. 476 (1915), that the object of a presidential pardon had the right to reject it. Justice Cooper’s dissent cites Burdick favorably at least four times. Burdick simply repudiates the dissenting views that a pardon must await indictment.
In that case, Burdick, the editor of a New York newspaper, had refused to answer questions posed by a grand jury by claiming his fifth amendment right to refuse self-incrimination. The President issued a pardon to Burdick so that he could not assert the fifth amendment. Burdick had been neither indicted nor accused of a crime. No one in Burdick suggested that the pardon was invalid for the reason that there was in the jurisprudence of the United States no reason to suggest a pre-indictment pardon was invalid. This fact also explains 1) why the issue was not seriously debated at any of the Constitutional Conventions, federal or Kentucky and 2) why neither the Attorney general nor the dissents offer authority to support the proposition. Citing cases from states where the Constitution restricts pardons to post conviction situations does not support the dissent positions, whereas the fact that the drafters of the Kentucky Constitution have repeatedly rejected the post conviction limitation tends to prove the majority’s point.
The dissents also ignore the fact that Wilson and Burdick, to the extent they suggest acceptance was a requirement for a pardon to become effective, were either overruled or severely limited in Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, 47 S.Ct. 664, 71 L.Ed. 1161 (1927). The government in Biddle argued that the acceptance requirement did not exist prior to Burdick,2 which the majority referred to as “very persuasive”. Justice Holmes rejected the 19th century view of a pardon as described in Wilson, and described his view as follows:
We will not go into history, but we will say a word about the principles of pardons in the law of the United States. A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed. See Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 120, 121, 45 S.Ct. 332, 69 L.Ed. 527, 38 A.L.R. 131. Just as the original punishment would be imposed without regard to the prisoner’s consent and in the teeth of his will, whether he liked it or not, the public welfare, not his consent determines what shall be done. So far as a pardon legiti*412mately cuts down a penalty it affects the judgment imposing it. No one doubts that a reduction of the term of an imprisonment or the amount of a fíne would limit the sentence effectively on the one side and on the other would leave the reduced term or fíne valid and to be enforced, and that the convict’s consent is not required.
Id. at 486-87, 47 S.Ct. at 665, 71 L.Ed. at 1161-62 (emphasis added). Under the modern view, the pardon power is a public policy tool rather than a mechanism for the granting of mercy. Cases decided by the United States Supreme Court after Biddle have tended to treat the pardon power in a manner consistent with Justice Holmes’ view,3 and Burdick has not been relied upon by the United States Supreme Court since. While Justice Cooper is correct when he notes that Burdick has not been expressly overruled, most, if not all, commentators seem to agree that Biddle is the modern and viable view in the federal system, replacing the 19th century view.4
As noted above, this court in Jackson v. Rose, 223 Ky. 285, 3 S.W.2d 641 (1928), without referring to Wilson, firmly rejected the holding of Wilson that a pardon must be pleaded. The following year this court, in Adkins v. Commonwealth, 232 Ky. 312, 23 S.W.2d 277 (1929), described at length the 19th century view of the pardon power in much the same way as Chief Justice Marshall described it in Wilson, stating that “[t]he granting of a pardon is an act of grace or justice-not on the part of an individual, but on the part of the sovereign.” Id. at 279. Having stated this, this court rejected the Marshall view as a relic of the past,5 and then cited Biddle for its *413core proposition that a pardonee has no more say in his pardon than he does in his original punishment. Id. at 280. Curiously, the court also, in obiter dictum, quoted from Wilson, which, standing alone, seems to support the idea that a pardon must be accepted to be effective. This dicta notwithstanding, the 20th century view of the pardon power has continued to appear in our jurisprudence. In Hamilton v. Commonwealth, 458 S.W.2d 166 (Ky.1970), citing and quoting Biddle, the court held that the pardon properly commuted the death sentence to life without parole without regard to whether the pardonee consented to the new sentence. Id. at 166-67. See also Commonwealth v. Phon, 17 S.W.3d 106, 108 (Ky.2000).
It is my belief that there are only two ways to interpret prior Kentucky law, particularly in the context of federal law, both of which arise from constitutional language that is in all material respects identical. I am convinced that at some point in the future the United States Supreme Court will address the issue directly and overrule Wilson and its progeny, and that this court could have chosen to ignore them now since this court has never formally adopted the acceptance requirement. However, both the 19th and 20th century views have been recognized in Kentucky jurisprudence and the majority opinion formulates a standard which accommodates both views of the pardon power in the most reasonable manner. It remains to be seen which types of pardons, other than amnesties, require acceptance and which do not, and I do not read the majority opinion as permitting a prisoner to choose his punishment. In addition to these two views of the power itself, the majority opinion properly seeks to balance the pardon power of the executive with the functions of the judiciary, including the grand jury. I fully concur with the majority opinion on the merits of the appeal both for the reasons set forth therein and those set forth herein.
II. THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JUSTICE MILLS
Two Justices determined that they should recuse from hearing this case, and that fact was certified to the Governor in accordance with § 110(3). The Governor then appointed two Special Justices, both of whom were sworn. The Attorney General filed a motion requesting that the Court disqualify the two special Justices. Because recusal is a personal matter to be decided by each particular Justice, this motion was not heard en banc. Special Justice Burdette determined that he should recuse from the case and filed a document indicating that he declined the appointment.6 The Governor then appointed Special Justice Mills, to which the Attorney General filed an objection.
The majority found the appointment of Special Justice Mills to be void, whereas I believe that the plain language of § 110(3) authorized the appointment. That subsection provides:
A majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. If as many as two Justices decline or are unable to sit in the trial of any cause, the Chief Justice shall certify that fact to the Governor, who shall appoint to try the particular cause a sufficient number of Justices to constitute a full court for the trial of the cause.
*414I take no issue with the majority’s observation that, had only one Justice recused from the case, then § 110(3) would not have applied, and that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1.020(l)(a) the case would have properly been heard by six Justices. I concur with the majority in rejecting the suggestion that the importance of the case requires a hearing by seven Justices. Moreover, it should be assumed that any case which reaches this body is an important case and it appears to me that each case is treated as such.
The provisions of § 110(3) are triggered by the recusal of two or more Justices. The section does not specify or expressly limit the number of appointments which the Governor may make. Rather, the number is defined by the phrase: “sufficient number to constitute a full court...”. There being no question but that the provisions of § 110(3) were triggered in this case, it remains only to decide the question of when § 110(3), having once been triggered, ceases to control the case.
At the outset it should be noted that the number of appointments is not limited to the number of original vacancies. In Commonwealth v. Smith, 875 S.W.2d 873 (Ky.1994) this Court considered a constitutional challenge to tax legislation. Three Justices recused, and Governor Jones appointed three special Justices. The Appellees (the physicians challenging the legislation) filed a motion seeking recusal of the appointees. One of the appointees (who had not yet been sworn) responded by declining the appointment, and the Governor appointed a fourth who was sworn and heard the case. It does not appear that anyone challenged the Governor’s ability to make the fourth appointment. Thus, at a minimum it is clear that, once the provisions of § 110(3) are triggered, the number of appointments the Governor can make is not limited to the number of vacancies which occasioned the application of § 110(3).
The majority distinguishes Smith on the ground that while four appointments were made, only three, the number of vacancies, were actually sworn in. In other words, the Governor may make as many appointments as necessary to achieve a “full court” of sworn Justices, but once that occurs § 110(3) ceases to control and either two more Justices must recuse or a subsequent recusal is governed by the court’s rules. While I agree with the majority that the “seriousness” of the case does not mandate a court of seven Justices at the time of “trial,” I believe the language of § 110(3) does.
The language of § 110(3) requires not only the appointment of “a sufficient number to constitute a full court,” but further specifies that, from a temporal standpoint, this must occur “at the time of trial”. The effect of the majority opinion is to determine that, having appointed two special Justices and bringing the number of Justices to seven (that being a full court), the purpose of § 110(3) has been fulfilled and accordingly the section’s operation has ended. Under this theory, once the number of Justices is returned to seven the case reverts to the court’s own rules, and since only one Justice recused after achieving a “full court,” the court’s own rules require the case proceed with six Justices. I cannot concur because the Constitutional provision itself is plain, requires no construction, and is inconsistent with the view taken by the majority. The interpretation given this provision by the majority rewrites the text to read “a sufficient number” to constitute a full court at the time the appointees are sworn. Clearly, the provision, once triggered, requires a “full *415court” at the “time of trial”.7
I must likewise reject the argument that a “full court,” as that term as used in § 110(3) has no fixed meaning. If the term means six Justices, then the Governor should not have been able to appoint two special Justices in the first instance. If the term means seven Justices, then the Governor in this case did not appoint (unless Special Justice Mills was permitted to sit) “a sufficient number to constitute a full court at the time of trial.” Under the majority view, the term “full court” means both six and seven. More importantly, the term can mean six only so long as the court’s rules permit this to be the case. If the Court amended Supreme Court Rule 1.020(l)(a) to allow for the Chief Justice to appoint a Special Justice where there was one recusal, the meaning of “full court” would also be altered to mean seven Justices in all cases. In effect, the majority has decided that the constitutional provision’s meaning depends on a rule of court which by definition had not been drafted when the amendment was added to the Constitution. The section in question gives no indication of an intent to delegate its very parameters to the court it created, and instead appears to define a full court in § 110(1), which provides:
The Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth and six associate Justices.
While it is true that six Justices constitute a quorum and can clearly decide a case as well as conduct other business, there is nothing in Ky. Const. § 110 to suggest that a mere quorum is the same as a “full court.” Accordingly, I would have overruled the Attorney General’s objection and permitted Special Justice Mills to sit during the “trial” of this cause.
GRAVES, J., joins as to Section I and SCOTT, J., joins as to Section II.

. In my view the issue of what reports may be permitted by law is not before the Court. A range of views are expressed in the concurring and dissenting opinions with which I neither join nor take issue with. Given my limited appointment to decide a particular case, I feel it appropriate to refrain from expressing my views on an issue that I do not believe material to the disposition of the issues presented.

. The government noted that Wilson was premised on English cases which "turned on the necessity that the pardon should be pleaded, but that when it was brought to the judicial knowledge of the Court 'and yet the felon pleads not guilty and waives the pardon, he shall not be hanged.’ ” Jenkins, 129, Third Century, case 62. The dissenting opinions miss this point as well, which is particularly significant since the Kentucky Court has never accepted the pleading requirement.

. See e.g. Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 95 S.Ct. 379, 42 L.Ed.2d 430 (1974)(although the opinion contains language indicating that the federal judiciary has not fully resolved as to whether the Marshall view is fully abandoned).

. For a compelling analysis of the interplay between the Marshall and Holmes views of the pardon see Buchanan, The Nature of a Pardon Under the United States Constitution, 39 Ohio St. L.J. 36 (1978). See also Comment, Constitutional Law — Presidential Pardons and the Common Law, 53 N.C.L.Rev. 785, 789 (1974-75)(asserting that in Biddle the court abandoned the Marshall view); Ko-bil, The Quality of Mercy Strained: Wresting the Pardoning Power from the King, 69 Tex. L.Rev. 569, 595 (1991)(asserting that in Biddle the court eschewed the Marshall vision); Ridolfi, Not Just an Act of Mercy: the Demise of Post-conviction Relief and a Rightful Claim to Clemency, 24 N.Y.U.Rev.L. & Soc. Change 43, 53-59 (1998)(asserting in Biddle the court "formally abandoned the 'private act of grace’ definition of the pardoning power.”); Peterson, Congressional Power over Pardon & Amnesty; Legislative Authority in the Shadow of Presidential Prerogative, 38 W.F.L.Rev. 1225, 1234 (2003)(noting that the Marshall and Holmes views were different).

.Commissioner Stanley wrote for the Court as follows:
But the claimed divine right of kings and their absolute and arbitrary power are relics of the past. The body of the people is now the sovereign, so there is all the more reason for the rule. The sovereign people through their constitutional compact have delegated power to the court as their agency to determine guilt and apply appropriate remedies and inflict appropriate punishment for the violation of the rights of Society. They have also delegated to the Governor the power to extend mercy and to forgive-not a personal debtor, but a debtor to the body politic. Both the Governor and the court alike are the creatures and servants of the sovereign. Their respective powers emanate from the people. So the act of the Governor in granting a pardon is the official act of an agent, who for the time being has been invested with plenary power and an unlimited discretion as to its use. His motives in exercising that prerogative may not be questioned any more than can the motives of the Legislature in enacting a law or the court in adjudging the law. If the executive acts corruptly or fraudulently in granting a pardon, he is amenable to his master-the people-and punishable *413through impeachment, a procedure and power likewise provided by and emanating from the sovereignty.
Id. at 279-81.

. Having been sworn, Special Justice Bur-dette had already accepted the appointment and thus this ruling was in effect a recusal.

. The use of the word "trial” is unfortunate as the court’s jurisdiction is appellate and the term is normally associated with the exercise of original jurisdiction. However, in Smith the provisions of § 110(3) were applied to appellate jurisdiction, and no one argues that its application should be limited to cases in which original jurisdiction was being exercised. Accordingly, it must mean either the time of oral arguments or the time of decision, with the latter making the most sense. Either way, however, at the time of "trial” in this case there was not a "full court” if that phrase contemplates seven Justices.