Frank v. United States, 918230

• Decision Date: 13 October 1992
• Docket Number: 918230
• Parties: Terrance FRANK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

113 S.Ct. 363

121 L.Ed.2d 276

Terrance FRANK, petitioner,

v UNITED STATES.

No. 91-8230.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 13, 1992

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Opinion of Justice STEVENS respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

This case illustrates the important difference between an order denying a petition for certiorari and a ruling on the merits.

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 ensures that a federal criminal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity will not be released onto the streets. It provides that "the Attorney General shall hospitalize the person [found not guilty by reason of insanity] in a suitable facility" until a State assumes responsibility for his care and treatment or the Attorney General finds that his release would not create a risk of harm to people or property. 18 U.S.C. § 4243(e). The question presented by the petition for certiorari is whether a defendant who has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity is entitled to a jury instruction explaining the effect of this statute. If such an instruction is not given, there is a strong possibility that the jury will be reluctant to accept a meritorious defense because of fear that a dangerous, mentally-ill person will go free.

For reasons that I explained at some length 18 years ago, refusal to give such an instruction in an appropriate case can constitute plain error.¹ Until 1984 the refusal to give such an instruction was justified by the absence of a federal statute providing for mandatory commitment.² In the District of Columbia, however, where such a statute had been in place since 1955, the instruction was required.³ Now that the reason for a different rule in different parts of the federal system has been eliminated, the wise rule adopted by then-Judge Warren Burger and his colleagues on the District of Columbia Circuit should be applied throughout the system.

Because the denial of a writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits, the Court's action today is not inconsistent with that conclusion.⁴ Rather, the Court's action is supported by the fact that a square conflict between two Courts of Appeals has not arisen since the enactment of the 1984 statute, and by the Court's normal practice of awaiting such a conflict before considering the significance of new federal legislation.

1United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068, 1092 (CA7 1974) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("[T]he failure of the trial judge to give any...