History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pierce v. Turner
386 U.S. 947
SCOTUS
1967
Check Treatment

Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas:

Denial of certiorari is proper in this cáse. I see no constitutional bar to a state court treating a petition ;for habeas corpus as a petition for rehearing where the habeas corpus petition raises, the same questions as ah earlier appeal. ’ But federal habeas corpus is not so cramped, and the petitioner can, of course, petition a federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The underlying question is whether the M’Nagkten test of legal insanity is a constitutionally permissible test of criminal liability in light of the contemporary state of knowledge on the problems of insanity. Should that test give way to the 128 years of experience in the fields of psychiatry and *948psychology since its formulation? Should it be replaced by the more sophisticated and realistic Durham test (Durham v. United States, 214 F. 2d 862) or some other test more in keeping with due process?

Case Details

Case Name: Pierce v. Turner
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Published: Feb 27, 1967
Citation: 386 U.S. 947
Docket Number: No. 739
Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.