*1 on of Heidnik. any filing or otherwise make behalf review seek parties he not want third stated that does specifically He has stop his execution. intervening his behalf Heidnik’s execution Accordingly, application permitted no further review should be should be denied wishes. I parties against third Heidnik’s by filings made tactics such as those further note that eleventh hour would unnecessarily can colleagues Mr. Ñolas and his employed inexcusable, client, are jeopardize espe- the interests literally are matter life cially where the interests at stake or death.
NEWMAN, J., joins dissenting this statement. A.2d 1016 Gary
In re M. HEIDNIK. WHITE, Next Friend. Petition of Maxine Davidson Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of 29, Argued April 1997. Aug.
Decided 1998. Reargument Sept. Denied *2 Dunham, Nolas, Philadelphia, H. Brett Billy Robert D. Maxine White. Marshall, Diviny, Eisenberg, Christopher Catherine
Ronald Philadelphia, for Com. C.J., ZAPPALA, CAPPY, FLAHERTY, and NIGRO
Before NEWMAN, JJ.
OPINION ZAPPALA, Justice. out of a warrant
Following activity generated a whirlwind execution,1 granted a Petition we entered *3 examine, and in with due reflection delibera- order Review setting, certain threshold ‘emergency’ tion from an apart capital recur in the out of likely carrying that are issues2 relating are concern two issues particular sentences. Of the subject the warrant: person the mental state executed,” the circumstances person’s “competence to be pursue litigation in initiate or person another which contesting out of carrying the the sentence. common law competence arises out of the ancient
The issue The the execution of one is insane. proscribing tradition who Opinion describing litigation and in per 1. the in this Court Our curiam Dkt.1997, 18, courts, 1997, is 50 Misc. federal filed at No. E.D. the Appendix A. as attached Opinion per at No. 50 E.D. Misc. Dkt.1997 touched Our curiam The proper party appellate of of in the context. issue the lack the explicitly attempted present to cure this defect Petition for Review White, that claiming a claim next friend status for Maxine Davidson supplements to the previously to in one of the had been alluded Advocacy Legal for application execution filed the Center for (CLEADA). reported Because there were no & Defense Assistance issue, significant guide this this court to consideration of decisions parameters accepted parties to the case and directed the address we standing Pennsylvania law. under law vis-a-vis federal of next friend 180 Court, States Supreme
United
in Ford v. Wainwright, 477
399,
2595,
(1986),
106
U.S.
S.Ct.
In Jermyn, 18, we cited Commonwealth v. 383 Pa. (Pa.1955), 117 A.2d for the common law no principle tried, sentenced, person insane could be or executed. Moon had been of first degree killing convicted murder president judge County of the Warren Pleas Common Court and sentenced to death. His mental condition came before the pursuant 12, 1951, to The Mental Act Health of June 533, P.L. which authorized commitment of “any de- in any penal tained or correctional institution ... thought to ill mentally be or in such condition that he care in a requires 344(a)(1). hospital....” mental Section The common pleas court determined that Moon was sane legally and refused the commitment. Our court remanded further proceedings, holding legislature, using statutorily defined ill,” term “mentally intended to broaden the test to used in staying proceedings beyond criminal “insanity,” which was the term used in predecessor 11, Mental Health July Act of 1923, P.L. 998.
Although Article of the present IV Mental Health Proce- Act, 9, 1976, dures Act of July amended, P.L. No. *4 § 50 seq., by P.S. 7401 et its purports title to deal with Affecting Charged “Determinations Those With Crime Or (emphasis added), 402(a), Under Sentence” Section 50 P.S. 7402(a), § sets forth “Definition Incompetency” applicable a only crime, i.e., a person charged to with “substantially a object to the unable understand nature or proceedings the against him or in participate to and assist his Thus defense.” Jermyn, plainly [and] 402 “is worded observing in that Section trial, imposition of during the conviction and applies only Act sentence,” held Mental Health Procedures was we that the Jermyn’s compe- to the to determine inapplicable proceeding Rather, at the tency suffer execution. A.2d 823.3 to controlling. constitutional standard was common law/ Jermyn noted, the issue in was whether principal As in court had standard deter- applied proper common is present purposes, condition. For it mining Jermyn’s mental before competency placed to note that the issue was important had in December of appointed the court counsel who been motion under Jermyn to connection with his represent Following our decision af- the Post-Conviction Relief Act. relief, had filed a firming the denial of collateral counsel Court, States petition Supreme for certiorari with United when the warrant was issued schedul- pending which was still 6, 1993. ing the execution for the week of December There to file question authority was no as to counsel’s thus “Application Compe- for Court Determination Defendant’s court; tency” brought the issue counsel’s before had appointment expired.4 not Moreover, “[wjhenever 401(a), person applies which a ... Section
3. sentence, severely mentally undergoing who is or becomes disabled” added), (emphasis merely "proceedings allows for examination and provisions act” to "in the treatment under civil of the be instituted person] The [the same manner as if were not so ... sentenced.” civil III, involuntary provisions for set out Article where commitment are 301(a) "severely mentally the term disabled” is defined in Section illness, person's] capacity mean "as a [a result mental self-control, judgment discretion in conduct of his exercise personal own needs affairs and social relations or care is so poses present danger lessened that a clear and of harm to himself or he 7301(a). determining § others.” 50 P.S. The clear and standards 301(b). present danger are further delineated in Section Moon, In the issue of the defendant's mental condition was raised sheriff, county capacity keeper jail in which Moon in his pending. was The was detained while his motion for new trial Mental prisoner, superinten- Health Act of 1951 authorized counsel for detained, any responsible was dent of the institution where he petition for commitment. only language present The Article IV of the Mental Health Proce- specifying proceedings appears dures Act who initiate in section *5 182 cases, however,
In many counsel, because whether court- appointed retained, or privately engaged is not to provide service, open-ended a condemned prisoner will not repre- be sented at the time an execution warrant signed after of completion direct and Moreover, collateral review. indicated, previously the Mental Health Procedures Act is inapplicable to such proceedings. Finally, there appear would way be no in which prisoner himself can initiate review If the issue. he comprehend cannot the reasons for the penalty implications, or its he cannot conceive of the need to any take measures to postpone it. if Conversely, he can need, conceive of such a by definition he must comprehend the implications of penalty, very filing and the of the applica- substance, tion i.e., would refute its the allegation of incompe- cases, then, In tency. such where all litigation other has been completed, it would seem that issue the condemned prisoner’s competency to be only executed can be by raised acting prisoner’s behalf.
In Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, No. 107 Capital Appeal Docket, we per filed a curiam order rejecting a claim of next friend standing by the victim’s mother by the attorney who represented had Zettlemoyer in post-conviction proceed- that, ings. stated We “[w]hile this Court is not bound U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arkansas, Whitmore v. U.S. 110 S.Ct. (1990), L.Ed.2d 135 we find its reasoning persuasive in this matter.” Whitmore,
In the putative next friend the Arkansas Supreme Court and in the United Supreme Court, States Whitmore, Jonas was a fellow death prisoner row with Ronald Simmons. He had sought to intervene the state court to appeal Simmons’s conviction and sentence despite Simmons’s persons its terms is limited charged with a crime. Section 402(c), 7402(c), provides: § 50 P.S. Application to the directing for an order incompetency an presented by Commonwealth, examination attorney an for the crime, counsel, person charged awith or the warden or other charge official in place of the institution or in which he is detained. text, however,
As noted in the incompetency definition of in Section 402(a) only'applies crime, persons charged with a undergo- not those ing a sentence. The right direct Arkansas appeal.5 of his explicit waiver next friend as a grant standing declined to Supreme Court reviewing After the nature of common law. matter state habeas standing corpus federal purposes next friend statute, Court wrote: Supreme the United States may ever *6 whether a “next friend” invoke deciding
Without
congressional
a
jurisdiction
the
of
federal
absent
authorization,
of
scope
any
we think the
of
federal doctrine
standing
permitted
what is
“next
is no broader than
friend”
the
corpus
which codified
historical
practice,
habeas
in
tradition of the
keeping
And
with
ancient
practice.
doctrine,
necessary
conclude that one
condition
“next
we
showing by
pro-
in
court is a
standing
friend”
federal
in
is
party
friend” that the real
interest
unable
posed “next
to
lack of
litigate
incapacity,
to
his own cause due mental
court,
other
disability.
access to
or
similar
had
been a state court
already
In Zettlemoyer, although we found the Whitmore reasoning persuasive; we separately analyze did not application its to the distinct questions standing to pursue Post-Conviction Relief Act litigation of issues relating Zettlemoyer’s original trial standing to assert the issue of Zettlemoyer’s competency *7 situation, to be executed. In the former because the issue is virtually Whitmore, i.e., identical to in next friend stand- ing pursue litigation that has been waived the real party interest, in the Whitmore is reasoning directly applicable. situation, however, The latter presents a conundrum. Since proposition the ultimate sought to be established is that the condemned prisoner incompetent executed, is to be it makes no sense to inquire preliminarily whether the prisoner is to forego raising that issue himself. As noted 1019, above at p. one who is able to raise the inquiry by definition incompetent, cannot be and one who is incompetent cannot raise the if inquiry. And one cannot inquiry raise the due to incompetence, one cannot knowingly forego raising it. issue, then,
As to this limited next friend cannot standing be conditioned on a showing by putative next friend that the real in party interest is litigate unable to his own cause due to mental incapacity. Accordingly, we must examine the applica- bility the other conditions for next friend standing —wheth- er the next “truly friend is dedicated to the best interests of person on whose behalf he litigate,” seeks to and whether in relationship party with the real “significant there is a interest.” in In the guidance there is little this area. surprisingly,
Not
was
cases where next friend status
reported
hundreds of
noted,
cause
person pursuing
relationship
between
subject
incapacity
readily
was
of action and the
interests,
party’s
for the real
as was their concern
apparent,
were
when married women
e.g., parent-child,
husband-wife
See,
in
incompetent
right.
to sue
their own
legally
deemed
(Pa.1938);
218, 2
332 Pa.
A.2d 860
e.g.,
Floyd,
Dellacasse
(1889).
Kear,
470, A.
Thus it has
Freiler v.
126 Pa.
to define the relational or interest
necessary
never been
noting
they
requirements
beyond
for next friend status
party.
not
in conflict with the interests of the real
See
(action
Galoni,
(1938)
Bertinelli v.
331 Pa.
Upon we must conclude at least issue, any attempt the context of this to fashion such a futility. definition is doomed to fact that The mere the matter of the prisoner’s competence condemned constitutional dimension suggests any degree limitations based or relationship simply interest are unworkable. We are un willing important might escape to hold that this issue review prisoner family because the condemned lacks or friends suffi ciently “close” to him who are it.6 willing able raise Bertinelli,
As
we observed
the actions of the next friend
court,
always subject
“are
to the control
supervision
right
which has the
each case to determine whether the
litigation is in the
interests.” 331 Pa. at
party’s]
[real
best
by maintaining
sharp
In this case the from OLEADA who filed the Stay of Execution Pursuant to Ford Wain “Application ” or pleas in the common court had never been retained wright However, an affidavit appointed represent Gary Heidnik. to the which set forth the Application personal was attached executive observations and belief OLEADA director incompetent. Attorney Costopolous that Heidnik was William belief, on his signed stating also an affidavit based obser vations, that Heidnik was He further stated incompetent. steps that he had asked OLEADA “to take whatever are necessary to secure a of execution for Mr. Heidnik and a executed,” judicial competency of his to be determination obligation on his “ethical as an officer-of the Court based case,” requested to seek review of Mr. Heidnik’s he had issues to the Affidavit of “present OLEADA these Courts.” ¶ 16, circum Costopolous, pp. William C. 4-5. Under these stances, that it pursuant foregoing analysis to the we find was Applica for the common court to appropriate accept hearing notwithstanding tion and with the the absence proceed Likewise, standing.7 of a formal claim of next friend justified not decide the court would have 7. We need whether been dismissing petition deciding hearing. the matter without
187
Maxine Davidson White
Petition for Review filed
present
properly
disposition.8
before this Court
as next friend
may
of who
initiate
question
reference to the
Without
execut
prisoner’s competence
to determine a
procedures
ed,
opinion
acknowledged
lead
Ford
Justice Marshall’s
might
impose
high
need to
“some
possibility that states
...
to control the
showing
prisoner
threshold
on behalf
insanity,”
or
of
106
repetitive
of nonmeritorious
claims
number
106
concurring opinion,
at
as did Justice Powell’s
S.Ct.
(state “may properly presume
petitioner
that
S.Ct. at 2610
out,
the time sentence is to be carried
remains sane at
of
may require
showing
insanity
a substantial threshold
mere
ly
trigger
hearing process.”)
Several courts have
see,
Harris,
a
v.
imposed
requirement,
e.g., Washington
such
(1990),
114
findings
Wash.2d
We Justices Eighth Court held in Ford that the incorporates Amendment insane, against a prohibition executing person who is there guidance, major ruling, was no clear much less a to the procedural requirements determining prisoner’s compe- itself, In tence suffer execution. Ford the determination as brought the issue to the not a competency Court was judicial it gover- matter. Rather was a decision made again express attorneys 8. We once onr concern that the CLEADA would appear representing to have a conflict of interest in Maxine Davidson they previously represented Gary White if Heidnik he instructed any appeals. Although them not to file such a conflict could be an particular additional basis for to disallow a individual or attorney participate proceedings to initiate or to establish a con- executed, prisoner’s incompetency demned to be we decline to do so here. of Florida procedures Ford’s counsel “invoked nor after of a con- competency the determination governing law inmate,” In those at 2598. accordance with demned S.Ct. who psychiatrists, three governor appointed procedures, joint separate interview with Ford and then filed conducted a referring competency question to the reports. Without *10 statement, a warrant governor signed making any other unsuccessfully, attempted, counsel for execution. Ford’s in the to be executed competency the issue of Ford’s present court dismissed a subse- The federal district state courts. evidentiary an holding without quent corpus petition habeas sanity. of Ford’s hearing on the issue agreed governor’s Court that the majority Supreme A correct- “presumption was not entitled to determination it did not corpus purposes because ness” for federal habeas offer con- for Ford’s counsel to provide opportunity a “fair” argument. or The Court therefore reversed trary evidence in the court. proceedings for further district and remanded left to the states “the task of opinion Marshall’s lead Justice to enforce the constitutional re- appropriate ways developing sentences,” ... 106 S.Ct. at upon striction execution ... found in analogies may that be observing “instructive a defendant procedures determining for whether commitment involuntary proceedings.” to stand trial ... or Id., joined by Rehnquist, Justice Burger, n.4. Chief Justice that inapplicable, Amendment and stated Eighth found the satisfy process. would due Jus- “wholly procedures” executive White, O’Connor, Eighth joined by Justice also found no tice insane, right not to be executed while Amendment substantive created the view that since Florida law had expressed but procedures implemented protect an interest such minimal satisfy process requirements, had to due interest heard.” “opportunity be particularly Powell, provided finding who the fifth vote Justice prohibition against Eighth incorporated Amendment suggested concurring opin- an insane executing person, ion that far constitutionally acceptable procedure may be less provide impartial should an
formal than a trial. The State
and argument
officer or board that can receive evidence
counsel,
expert psychiatric
prisoner’s
including
from the
psychiatric
differ from the State’s own
evidence
Beyond
requirements,
examination.
these basic
States
to determine what
leeway
process
should have substantial
at
long
best balances the various interests
stake. As
observed,
I
process
basic fairness is
would find due
satis-
fied, and would
of correctness of
apply
presumption
2254(d)
§
corpus.
federal habeas
However,
at 2610.
Powell had previously
S.Ct.
Justice
presumption
required by
noted that
of correctness
federal
to factual
corpus
applied
findings
habeas
statute
of “a
of competent jurisdiction,”
State court
and that “no amount of
stretching can extend
term
[the
court”]
“State
include the
Id. at
that Ford
governor.”
it
appear
2608-09. Thus would
required that the state determination
made
aby
court or at
body
least some other
“independen[t]
from the
prosecutorial
government,”
arm of the
106 S.Ct. at
*11
the state to avoid
relitigating
competency issue de novo
However,
federal habeas corpus proceedings.9
recent amend-
statutory provisions
In a number of states there are
or court rules
governing
procedures
examining
the mental condition of a
prisoner.
specify
may
condemned
Some of these statutes
who
raise the
issue, see,
13-4022(A)(1997)(director
e.g.,
§
Arizona Revised Statutes
of
corrections,
department
prisoner's attorney,
attorney
state
of
or
for the
motion);
(1997)(if
may
§
good
state
file
Cal. Penal Code 3701
there is a
insane,
reason to believe defendant has become
warden must call this
located,
attorney
county
prison
fact to attention of district
of
where
is
(1997)(war-
duty
petition);
§
whose
it is to file
Conn. Gen. Stat.
54-101
(1997)(counsel
may
application);
den
make
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.811
prisoner may
hearing
move for
of execution and
in court of circuit
place);
where
§
execution is to take
Miss. Code Ann.
99-19-
57(2)(a)(1997)(convict,
friend,
person acting
or a
as his next
or commis-
552.060(2)
may
application); §
sioner of corrections
file
RS.Mo.
(1997)(director
notifies,
others,
department
among
of
of corrections
located);
county
facility
circuit court of
where correctional
R.R.S.
(1997)(warden
§
having custody gives
Neb. 29-2537
or sheriff
notice to
judge
sentenced);
of the district in which the convict was tried and
inmate,
§ 656(2)(1998)(petition may
by
N.Y. C.L.S. Corree.
be filed
counsel,
corrections],
employee
department
the inmate’s
an
[of
legal guardian,
the inmate's
a member of the inmate's immediate
and
in the Anti-Terrorism
corpus statutes
ments to the habeas
some confusion
Act have caused
Penalty
Death
Effective
can even
to be executed
competence
of
whether claims
about
In
See,
e.g.,
corpus proceedings.
in federal habeas
be raised
(11th
Medina,
1556, 1564-65
1997)(“provisions
Cir.
re
109 F.3d
amended,
review of
2244(b),
to. foreclose
operate
§
applica
claims in second habeas
executed
competency
(5th
1997)(same);
Davis,
Justice CASTILLE did not in the consideration or decision of this case. A
Exhibit SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH Respondent OF HEIDNIK, GARY M. Petitioner Docket, No. 50 Eastern District Miscellaneous Application Stay of Execution Filed:
OPINION PER CURIAM
In recognition potential for confusion and misunder- standing attendant to the constricted time frame within which occurred, these events along with the public interest ensur- ing that matters of this nature are neither unduly delayed nor disposed consideration, thorough without the Court deems prudent it to file this Opinion explain the issues that were
192 that was involved process matter and the in this presented those issues. resolving Governor, Gary Heid- by the to a warrant issued
Pursuant 15, 1997. Tuesday, April on executed scheduled nik was Execution 1997, Stay for 11, “Application an April On ” Philadel- was filed Wainwright v. to Ford Pursuant Billy H. Ñolas of by attorney Pleas Court Common phia Education, Assistance Advocacy & Defense Legal for Center Exe- (CLEADA). Stay day, “Application an That same Court, attaching application filed in this cution” was accompanying court and pleas in common had been filed issue a that this Court requested Application affidavits. The stay court denied the pleas if the common execution stay of filed April Application on 14. The p.m. act 5:00 did not appropriate preserve a was this Court asserted under significant questions jurisdiction because this Court’s 399, 2595, L.Ed.2d 106 91 477 U.S. S.Ct. Wainwright, v. Ford not (1986).1 compe- that Heidnik was It further asserted 335 not executed, and did psychotic that Heidnik was tent to be and that judicial proceeding, any the nature of understand scheduled the reasons for his cannot understand Heidnik implications. or its execution court included in the common filed Application
The
Bernstein,
D.
Clancy
Dr.
Dr. Lawson F.
affidavits of
Dunham,
Cíate,
McKenzie,
Esquire,
Brett
Robert
Michael
the affidavit of
summary,
In
Costopoulos, Esquire.
C.
William
10, 1997,
him as a medi-
Bernstein,
identified
April
dated
Dr.
psychiatrist
a staff
who served as
psychiatrist
cal doctor and
Pittsburgh
Institute in
several
at the State Correctional
to evalu-
opportunity
Dr. Bernstein had the
until 1994.
years
371,
(1995), we
Jermyn,
Pa.
Dr. Bernstein stated from certainty that Heidnik suffered degree of medical able seriously him as a schizophrenia, and described paranoid Dr. disturbed, individual. impaired, psychotic cognitively *14 the stan- that he was familiar with Bernstein further stated that, Ford v. and competency Wainwright under dards his understanding of those standards and upon his based Heidnik, that professional opinion it was his knowledge of he is about to punishment neither appreciates Heidnik suffer, implica- execution or its impending the reasons for his that Heidnik’s failure to com- tions. Dr. Bernstein indicated understand the reasons for or the facts reality and prehend mental execution is the result his serious impending his illness. him as a affidavit of Dr. McKenzie described
The undated psychiatrist engaged and who has been physician licensed general psychiatry and forensic since study practice and after his arrest on 1963. Dr. McKenzie evaluated Heidnik he continued charges degree of first murder. He stated that him in prison in touch with Heidnik and visited after trial, having approxi- most recent visit occurred with the Dr. mately opined fifteen months before. McKenzie with certainty that Heidnik suffers degree reasonable of medical actively psychotic, from and is not schizophrenia, contact his Heidnik reality. with Dr. McKenzie stated belief that under incompetency meets the standard of be executed Wainwright. Ford v. 10, 1997, that he April
Michael date’s affidavit dated stated Pennsylvania Society for the Prison was an Official Visitor 15, 4,1992, January on June prison who visited Heidnik personal impression his of Heidnik’s 1997. Cíate described condition. physical mental condition and Dunham, April Brett dated Esquire, The affidavit of Robert 10, 1997, him as the Executive Director of CLEA- identified that Heidnik not
DA. Dunham stated was one of CLEADA’s clients, the issuance of following but the death warrant 15,1997, April they Heidnik’s execution for learned scheduling represented by that Heidnik believed he was William Costo- in- poulos, Esquire. They Costopoulos contacted and were not Heidnik’s formed he was counsel.
CLEADA was also informed about of Dr. opinions McKenzie, Bernstein, Dr. and Michael Cíate as to Heidnik’s requested provide condition and the three individuals affidavits his condition. Dunham also stated that he about Costopoulos arrangements Department made with the Heidnik on Dunham April Corrections visit 1997. Heidnik, meeting stating described their with that Heidnik did not that the to him person speaking Costopou- understand was expressed personal los. Dunham also belief that Heidnik incompetent was to be executed. Costopoulos,
The affidavit of William Esquire April dated 11,1997, stated that he was contacted CLEADA on April Costopoulos spent indicated that he two approximately during hours with Heidnik 10 visit. He set forth his *15 response recollection of Heidnik’s to his visit and stated that Heidnik did not believe that the death warrant valid was since it calling has the name of someone himself Tom Ridge. Costo- poulos expressed personal opinion that Heidnik was incom- petent to be executed. 14, April pleas
On the common court a at hearing conducted During which Heidnik testified. the course of the the hearing court that Heidnik psychiatrist. directed be examined a examination, Following the the hearing resumed with the psychiatrist’s testimony, after which Heidnik testified further. hearing At the close of the the court that it indicated found under the standard of Ford v. Wainwright Heidnik deny and therefore would the stay. The court stated that findings detailed of fact and conclusions of law would be filed parties opportunity and offered the the proposed submit findings adjourned, and conclusions. Before hearing He- idnik indicated in Dun- response questioning by Attorney *16 court stated that Heidnik’s incompetent. Heidnik was The appellate rights specifically his or 2. The court did not advise Heidnik of colloquy waive his conduct a to determine whether Heidnik intended to knowing, voluntary intelligent. rights or if such waiver was paranoid schizophrenia substantially capaci- does not affect his ty position and make a rational choice with appreciate continuing abandoning corpus proceed- habeas respect ings in federal court. court further that even if the
The found “next Mends” had a full federal standing pursue corpus proceeding, habeas the common pleas finding court’s Heidnik was v. Wainwright under the standard of Ford would be entitled presumption to a of correctness. the district court was considering
While the matters before it, in this the CLEADA filed Court “Petition for Leave to Execution,” Stay for Supplement Application along with the Execution, “Supplement Application Stay for Discussing Proceedings the Lower Court and the on Stay Need for Appeal” as to which leave to file was sought. Although no petition review had been filed from the order of the court, common pleas attorneys CLEADA asserted at the that, outset of the Supplement appeal “This is an from the stay denial of a motion for of execution in filed the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia. Meaningful appellate review cannot possibly accomplished before Mr. Heidnik’s sched- date, uled execution Appellant accordingly urges that the Court enter a of execution.” The “Petition for Leave to filing File” noted that the the issues presented “addresse[d] proceedings the common this matter on 14,1997.”
The attorneys argued Supplement CLEADA that the Eighth execution violates the Amendment to the United States Constitution as Heidnik is and does not incompetent understanding have a rational for imposition reasons penalty. They the death submitted Heidnik has been anyone to consult legal rights. They unable with about his also contended that Heidnik’s beliefs it impossible make him to make rational litigation suggested decisions and the conditions of incarceration death row had an effect on Heidnik’s mental state. *17 similar that the claim, attorneys argued the CLEADA
In a psycho- physically are Heidnik’s confinement conditions of involuntari- waiving rights he is such that logically punitive by of Heidnik the the evaluation challenged also ly. They day, as it was based previous the psychiatrist court-appointed attor- Additionally, CLEADA visit. upon single a brief erroneously pleas court the common neys contended to Heidnik’s of evidence relevant presentation precluded hearing did pleas the common They argued that competency. by Eighth required fairness not the fundamental provide Constitu- to the United States Fourteenth Amendments tion. Arkansas, the CLEADA attor-
Relying upon Whitmore “next friend” grant Court should also asserted that the neys White, because Davidson daughter, Maxine status to Heidnik’s and has a father’s interests dedicated” to her truly she “is in the alter- They argued him. relationship” with “significant does not meet the if that White native that the Court finds status, ap- should “next friend” Court requirements for purpose. for that point another individual stay motion for response a to the The Commonwealth filed counsel by filed Heidnik’s supplement of execution and to the was filed subse- response to the motion. Since its original hearing competency on Heidnik’s quent evidentiary to the 14, 1997, pleas the common held on before be executed court, testimony summarized detail the Commonwealth during the who had examined Heidnik psychiatrist asserted that hearing. The Commonwealth course of the common court and the pleas on the record before the based common of law made findings of facts and conclusions should be court, stay for a this Court the motion before to Heidnik’s argued supplement It further denied. for the relief provide did not basis stay motion for characterization of the upon it requested since relied mat- upon Heidnik’s counsel and hearing testimony made ters not evidence.
The asserted also that Commonwealth Heidnik’s counsel not argument could seek a based on an that appellate sought analysis. review be under a “next friend” The challenged standing Commonwealth of a third party case, Horn, enter the in this litigation citing Zettlemoyer v. (3rd Cir.1995). F.3d 24 The Commonwealth asserted that Zettlemoyer appellate litigation makes clear “next Mend” would in this improper case because Heidnik is *18 to and not wish proceed proceed appellate did to with review. 15, 1997, April Supplement
On a “Second to for Application Execution, Stay Discussing the Constitutional Impropriety Adoption the Lower Court’s Wholesale of the District Order, Attorney’s Submitted Affording Without Petitioner an Adequate Opportunity Object to to the in the Language Therein, Order” was filed this it argued with Court.3 was the failure to attorneys afford the CLEADA an opportunity 14, object language to the of the common pleas April court’s 1997 order in a process resulted violation of Heidnik’s due rights. 16, 1997, April
On attorneys CLEADA filed “Petition- er/appellants Motion for Leave to Supplement [sic] Further Application Stay for of Execution” along with the “Third Supplement Support Application for Stay Execution” Therein, as to sought. which leave to file was the CLEADA attorneys argued that the evaluation during of Heidnik pleas hearing unreliable, common was inaccurate and allegations based on psychiatrist had contacts with attorneys Commonwealth and was not an impartial wit- ness for the court. 17, 1997,
On April United States Court of Appeals the Third Circuit heard an from appeal the district court 18, April order. On the court vacated the district court order remanded, and directing designate district court to Maxine Davidson White as Heidnik’s next friend and to appoint coun- sel for her. The court further ordered the district court to continue its of execution pending action on the McFar- request supplement 3. No for leave to file this was made. appeals court of court. The
land
filed in the district
petition
psychiatrist,
testimony
court-appointed
held that
finding
law,
support
was insufficient
matter of
312, 86 S.Ct.
Peyton,
Rees v.
384 U.S.
competence pursuant
States,
v. United
(1966)
Dusky
1505,
and
Pursuant daughter designating Heidnik’s an order on entered as coun- friend”, attorneys the CLEADA appointing as “next tunc, continuing stay indefinitely its nunc pro sel for her petition. corpus action on a filing of and habeas pending and the court’s Bench Memorandum light In of the district to reiterate that no important it is opinion circuit court’s denying the the common order for review from petition on Heidnik’s ever been filed.4 Based Stay has Application that he did pleas hearing testimony at the close of the common fol- which was attorneys appeal, not wish the CLEADA *19 seeking district court of the motion the by filing lowed the appear it would daughter,5 for Heidnik’s “next friend” status that, Judge page 2 "The decision Bench Memorandum noted at 4. The Pleas, findings along of fact with his of the Court of Common Poserina law, Supreme Court of appealed to the were and conclusions Order, and the Pennsylvania. our instant Memorandum At the time of Pennsylvania yet Supreme had not ruled.” Court of pleas court opinion, stating that the common court after The circuit indicated, Pennsylvania Supreme appeal stay, "An to the had denied the p. Additionally, discussion of pending.” Opinion in its at 5. Court is findings to a pleas would be entitled the common court’s whether corpus purposes, the habeas presumption correctness for federal wrote, currently findings under review by the state court are "the circumstances, Supreme the by Pennsylvania Court. Under these the operative.” Opinion at n. 7. appear to be presumption would not common addressed to the request “next friend” status was 5. No for Court. The issue plainly presented for decision in this pleas court or execution, request for only in the context of the was identified Application "Supplement for specifically paragraph VII of the attorneys conformity CLEADA acted in with Heid- nik’s wishes in not a filing petition review.
Because the execution stayed by has been the federal courts there, pending litigation nothing and is this pending before Court,6 we how vacate the staying Order execution entered on If April the counsel for the “next appointed friend” in the litigation pursue federal intends to an from appeal 14, 1997, April common court order of they are directed to file a proper petition perfect review to the record in this 21,1997. regard by Monday, April FLAHERTY, C.J., concurring files a opinion.
FLAHERTY, Justice, Chief concurring. concur, record,
I am although forced to I believe the state federal, Heidnik, and demonstrates that Gary by as found United States District Court for the Eastern District of Penn- sylvania, “... presently suffering is from mental illness ...,” and, form of paranoid schizophrenia view, in my is insane, I by say cannot stand nothing while an insane person put to death contrary state to the mores of observes, society. correctly however, that, civilized The court “... a request for ‘next friend’ status was never addressed to Stay, presented etc.” clearly Court on 15. This Court is present
unable to address that issue on the record. note, however, attorneys We that if the CLEADA were instructed appeal, appear their client not to file an there would to have been preventing conflict of interest representing them from assert- ing incompetent give that their client was them such instructions. prothonotary "Request 6. Our has also received a for Immediate Re- Light mand to the Court of Common Pleas in of the Decision of the Appeals United States Court of for the Third Circuit” from the CLEADA which, attorneys, apart caption, requests only from its that counsel be permitted today filing stating until the close of business make a position proper "next friend’s” proceedings to the course of further Pennsylvania in courts. The Commonwealth has also filed a "Mo- Stay Request tion to Vacate and Answer to Next Friend’s for Immediate Remand to Court of Common Pleas.” Court, nothing presently pending Since there is before this *20 Remand, "Request ripe for Immediate etc.” is dismissed as not adjudication. light independent In stay, of our decision to vacate the the Commonwealth's Motion is dismissed as moot. for decision presented is not court and common present on the thus, be vacated must stay, The Court.” this otherwise. to do jurisdiction no haveWe of the record. state A.2d 1028 COHEN, Appellant, Jeffrey H. GOLDBERG, Appellee. A.
Lisa Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Sept. Argued 23, 1998.
Decided Nov.
Notes
attorneys
appeal.2
See
not wish the
ham that he did
109,
at
Testimony
15,
petition
filed a
attorneys
April
the OLEADA
On
District of Penn
Court for the Eastern
States District
United
(2)
status,
(1)
stay
a
pauperis
in forma
sylvania seeking
849,
2568,
Scott,
v.
512 U.S.
S.Ct.
to McFarland
pursuant
(3)
(1994),
habeas
appointment of federal