Panico v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 45,45 |
| Citation | 375 U.S. 29,11 L.Ed.2d 1,84 S.Ct. 19 |
| Parties | Salvatore PANICO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Jerome Lewis, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson, for the United States.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The petitioner was one of numerous defendants in a lengthy criminal trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He was found guilty, but his conviction was reversed on appeal. United States v. Bentvena, 2 Cir., 319 F.2d 916. For his conduct during the trial the petitioner was found guilty of criminal contempt in a summary proceeding conducted by the trial judge under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure after the trial had ended.1 This contempt conviction was affirmed on appeal, one judge dissenting. 2 Cir., 308 F.2d 125.
If the petitioner was legally responsible for his conduct during the trial, there can be no doubt that his conduct was contumacious. It is contended, however, that at the time of the conduct in question the petitioner was suffering from a mental illness which made him incapable of forming the criminal intent requisite for a finding of guilt. No separate hearing was had upon this issue in the contempt proceeding, although during the course of the previous criminal trial, the judge had heard conflicting expert testimony upon the different question of the petitioner's mental capacity to stand trial. Shortly after the contempt conviction, the petitioner was found by state-appointed psychiatrists to be suffering from schizophrenia and committed to a state mental hospital. Cf. Bush v. Texas, 372 U.S. 586, 83 S.Ct. 922, 9 L.Ed.2d 958.
In the light of these circumstances, we hold that the fair administration of federal criminal justice requires a plenary hearing under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine the question of the petitioner's criminal responsibility for his conduct.2 Ac- cordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded.
Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN would affirm the judgment below substantially for the reason given by Judge Smith in his opinion for the Court of Appeals. United States v. Panico, 2 Cir., 308 F.2d 125.
1
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wilson 8212 1162
...charge. Significantly, the record reveals the possibility of a psychiatric defense, at least for Wilson (cf. Panico v. United States, 375 U.S. 29, 84 S.Ct. 19, 11 L.Ed.2d 1 (1963)). . . . 'Finally, because of the posture of the case, the record is silent on other facts which may well exist ......
-
Richmond Black Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Richmond, Va.
...18, 69 L.Ed. 162 (1924), Schwartz v. United States, 217 F. 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1914), that a person willfully, Panico v. United States, 375 U.S. 29, 84 S.Ct. 19, 11 L.Ed.2d 1 (1963), contumaciously, In Re Floersheim, 316 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1963), intentionally, In Re Brown, 147 U.S.App.D.C. ......
-
Mirra v. United States
...v. Panico, 308 F. 2d 125 (2d Cir. 1962) (Judges Moore and Smith, Judge Friendly dissenting), vacated on other grounds, 375 U.S. 29, 84 S. Ct. 19, 11 L.Ed.2d 1 (1963); United States v. Galante, 308 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1962) (Judge Kaufman); United States v. Bentvena, 308 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1962) ......
-
Hardy v. Superior Court, Judicial Dist. of Fairfield
...aware that his conduct is wrongful.” [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ); see also Panico v. United States, 375 U.S. 29, 30–31, 84 S.Ct. 19, 11 L.Ed.2d 1 (1963) (vacating summary contempt adjudication due to substantial evidence of mental impairment of contemnor). 6. Se......