*1 April 11, 1988 Zoning Plan and Commission Udolf No. 87-1285. v. Super. et from Ct. Appeal Hartford al. Town of West under this Dist., dismissed Britain Jud. Conn., Hartford/New Rule 53. Court’s
April 13, 1988 (87-6780). Butler, Lowenfield Warden. No. A-792 v. of sentence stay for of execution Application A. 5th Cir. C. White, him referred to the by and death, to Justice presented Stevens would Blackmun Justice Court, denied. Justice application. grant joins, Marshall Brennan, whom Justice
Justice dissenting. to death. The has been sentenced Lowenfield
Petitioner Leslie him to him entitles about to execute law of State to incapacity pro- his “mental the issue of any time” “raiste] Ann., Art. 642 Proc. execution. La. Code Crim. ceed” with the 1986). (La. 1981). 543, 564 Perry, (West 502 So. 2d See State sanity, to doubt” ground a “reasonable If there is examination,” La. Crim. Proc. mental order a court “shall Cpde (West steps” further “no 1981), may permit Ann., Art. 643 capacity mental to to have the until he “is found his punishment event, law affords state Art. 642. proceed,” if can he sanity a commission review pre-execution right present that he lacks the of evidence aby preponderance “show Perry, supra, execution.” undergo capacity commission, presenting by sanity review a moved for Petitioner of a The evidence consisted currently insane. that he is evidence licensed clini- Zimmerman, duly L. Dr. Marc affidavit sworn for five and tested who interviewed cal psychologist probable “it is highly and concluded that hours on March . . paranoid schizophrenia. suffering that Mr. Lowenfield profile who obtain the same persons that 85% of A has found study paranoid schizophrenics.” diagnosed Lowenfield . . . as Mr. omitted). (citation Dr. Zimmerman con- to Pet. Cert. App. capacity Mr. Lowenfield’s schizophrenic, paranoid “As a tinued: Indeed, my impaired. would be penalty understand the clinical interview with Mr. Lowenfield indicated that he is cur- (em- understand rently unable to the death penalty.” *2 added). The phasis presented State no evidence either to refute Dr. question Zimmerman’s conclusions or to his credentials. In evidence, the face of that unrefuted the court, Louisiana trial and then Supreme the Louisiana denied the motion without explanation.
Petitioner
application
thereafter filed an
for
relief
habeas
The District Court
the
Court.
denied on
basis of
an “extended conversation” with Dr. Zimmerman. Civ. Action
(ED
1988).
88-1549,
La.,
No.
3p.
Apr.
From that conver-
sation,
any
which the District Court conducted without
notice to
petitioner’s
apparently
petitioner’s
counsel and
before
application
filed,
that,
was
the District Court concluded
to Dr. Zim-
contrary
affidavit, “petitioner
merman’s
the capacity
has
to understand the
realities of
pending
Petitioner, though
the
execution.
para-
[a]
noid
is
schizophrenic,
apparently able
that the
understand
ex-
ecution is
forward in
going
accordance with law.” Ibid. A di-
vided
panel of
Court of
in
Appeals
opinion
affirmed
an
that
reached this chambers a mere 15 minutes before the scheduled ex-
1988).
(CA5
ecution.
A this majority agree Court did not on the precise procedures that the Constitution requires question when raised of a prisoner’s for sanity majority did, however, execution. A hold that process hearing due demands a at prisoner least once the has made some “threshold that he has showing” become insane since his trial. 417 (opinion Marshall, J., joined Bren- id., JJ.); (Powell, and nan, Blackmun, J., con- Stevens, in curring part Powell, and in concurring judgment). pro- Justice that proposition, stated that State . . “[t]he fifth vote viding a that remains sane at presume the time may properly may out, require substantial to be carried thresh- sentence insanity merely trigger hearing process.” old Ibid, omitted). (footnote id., also 429-430 See (O’Connor, J., in concurring dissenting result joined J., White, (where insane, execution of the prohibits state law the State part) a hearing). provide must requisite has set “threshold Legislature Louisiana level of that would constitute a “rea- at that evidence
showing” sanity. La. prisoner’s Code Crim. to doubt” ground sonable (West 1981). beyond why me Zim- Ann., It is Dr. Proc. Art. 643 meet For affidavit did not that threshold. merman’s unrefuted affidavit, which was matter, explain why I am a loss to courts, did establish evidence before the sole evidence, entitling petitioner *3 of insanity by preponderance he seeks. Neither state hearing to a but to the relief merely fact, court much neither so any explanation. court furnished know, all we as it was For applying. articulated standard obligation peti- on their to consider entirely state courts defaulted provide any to courts, by declining tioner’s claim. The Louisiana have relief, practical for their denial of as a matter explanation to meet not “a substantial threshold required petitioner The far but an insurmountable one. effect extends insanity” of case, challenged for the state courts have all death- beyond this roulette, Russian harrowing game inmates to a which row at the “threshold” or suffer the conse- guess each must take a wild to Where, here, way there is no discern whether the quences. “fact-finding adequate . . was not procedure state courts’ Sain, results,” Townsend v. 372 U. S. reasonably correct reaching is pre- of relief entitled no (1963), their bare denial 316 2254(d). § 28 U. S. C. sumption of correctness. See fed- injustice perpetrated outrageous more was the Even the state de- upon resorted courts’ petitioner eral to which courts The District Court responsibilities. fault of their constitutional that Dr. Zimmerman’s conclusion expressly adopted 88-1549, supra, Action No. schizophrenic.” Civ. “paranoid was a compelled have the District 3. That conclusion should from argument [peti- evidence and very least, to “receive his is “aware that death is on whether counsel” tioner’s] 998 the connection
approaching” “perceives between his crime and Ford, J.). punishment.” supra, his 422 (opinion Powell, Court Instead, entirely excluded counsel and con its ex it parte investigation ducted own which managed to ex (“Petitioner Zimmerman a tract from Dr. concession ... is appar ently to understand that able the execution going forward in law,” 3) Civ. 88-1549, accordance Action No. supra, at (“[H]e his contradicted sworn affidavit dated three days earlier currently unable understand the death penalty,” App. to Pet. 3). The for'Cert. District Court’s consideration of claim fell insanity far short of the de novo review that it was obliged provide upon Ford, the state courts’ default. See 477 S., Instead, functionally U. its review was equivalent to the “‘policy excluding advocacy all on the con demned,’” which we have held unconstitutional. at 412-413 (citations omitted). yet,
Worse petitioner alleges the State does not deny— —and that the District Court conducted its ex parte investigation before it even had jurisdiction case; over the as Judge Johnson, dis- senting Appeals’ Court of judgment, observed, “the dis- trict court failed to make finding on record.” F. 2d, at 188. “Procedural shortcuts always are dangerous. Greater— surely not lesser—care should be taken to avoid the risk of error consequences when its Autry Estelle, irreversible.” (1983)(footnote omitted). Appeals, Court of for its part, compounded the District entirely Court’s abuse it ignoring and proceeding to address *4 sufficiency Dr. Zimmerman’s affidavit as original matter, an without a proper predicate. District Court Even that determina- tion hopelessly conflated the in principles articulated Ford. From Justice Powell’s observation that . . . may require “State a substantial showing insanity merely threshold to trigger the Ford, hearing process,” (emphasis added), supra, the Court Appeals supposed that the so, State must do see 2d, 843 F. (“[Petitioner 187 has made a substantial showing”), threshold and overlooked the require State’s decision to merely aof “reasonable ground to doubt” in order to trigger further examination.
999 in every The abuses and mistakes court that has considered this attributable, in part, case are no doubt at least to the haste with which they proceeded:
1. the afternoon of in April On filed Louisi- ana state court a petition postconviction raising relief claims that now us. before
2. Later that afternoon state trial court denied relief. (eastern time) 3. At 6 the next p.m. daylight day, April 12, the Louisiana denied relief and Supreme petitioner ap- Court plied corpus. to the District Court for a writ of habeas 2d, F. 184-185. p.m.
4. At 8:30 petitioner’s appli- Court denied cation. night
5. At 12:10 a.m. that same of Appeals Court affirmed. (15
6. At 12:45 a.m. minutes before the scheduled execu- tion) the of Appeals’ opinions Court were circulated to this Court. a.m.,
7. At petitioner already strapped 1:05 chair, electric this Court denied his for a application stay of execution. At 1:25 a.m. was pronounced
8. dead. N. Y. Times, 14, 1988, A28, col. 1. Time ran out Apr. p. before we voted on the certiorari petition accompanied petitioner’s stay application.
The haste that attended of this case is disposition reprehensible. that a case hardly surprising scudding through It is the state yield logic courts in 24 hours should orders devoid of law or —the simply read, in this ease “DENIED”—for which the descrip- ones If “terse” would be charitable. the federal courts are intent tion cost, pace they case, were this accelerating on only procedural give is to take shortcuts and short their choice And arithmetic simple suggests grave injus- shrift to substance. of last resort takes 15 minutes to read and an- tice when the Court from the court below and cast a vote on alyze pages opinions fife or death. if requires provide
Due means little it courts to an process Ordean, heard,” 234 U. S. “opportunity to be Grannis duty on them a concomitant to listen— imposing without stake, and, very carefully. a life is at to listen Pre- at least when *5 sumably, (one it was in recognition of the injustice that four of us five) than the requisite less voted stay petitioner’s execution, to consider insanity so as his claim in an atmosphere that was not lunatic. itself
Regrettably, this case atypical. is not It is the natural product a penal system conducive to inaccurate factfinding shoddy analysis. And I doubt that any system could be devised to cure evil, so long States continue to impose punishments so se- vere as to be irrevocable. Even were I not convinced that the penalty death is in all circumstances cruel and punishment unusual prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, Gregg see v. Georgia, 428 (1976) U. S. I (dissenting opinion), would have no a penal system that permits State’s interest in out meting on schedule to convert our constitutional duty dispense justice into a dispense license to with it.
I dissent.
April 14, 1988 (A-797). No. 87-6787 Muncy, Clanton Warden, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence death, presented himby Chief Justice, referred to the denied. Certiorari denied.
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall, dissenting. to our Adhering views that the death penalty inis all circum- stances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendments, and Fourteenth Gregg v. Georgia, 428 we grant would the application for stay of execu- tion and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.
April 18, 1988 No. 87-1366. Dubish v. Kansas. Appeal from App. Ct. Kan. jurisdiction. dismissed for want of Treating pápers appeal whereon the was taken petition as a for writ certiorari, certiorari denied. Corp.
No. 87-1400. et Clausell ux. v. Hobart Appeal Fla. Sup. Ct. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating