Rees v. Peyton
Decision Date | 31 May 1966 |
Docket Number | M,No. 321,321 |
Parties | REES v. PEYTON. isc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
S. White Rhyne, Jr., and Charles A. Dukes, Jr., for petitioner.
Reno S. Harp III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, for respondent.
Monroe H. Freedman and Melvin L. Wulf, for the American Civil Liberties Union and others, as amici curiae.
Following a related federal conviction and life sentences for kidnapping, United States v. Rees, D.C., 193 F.Supp. 849, Melvin Davis Rees, Jr., was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a state court in Virginia, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal in 1962. Rees v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 850, 127 S.E.2d 406, cert. denied, 372 U.S. 964, 83 S.Ct. 1088, 10 L.Ed.2d 128. Thereafter, a habeas corpus petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the state court conviction had violated federal constitutional rights of Rees. The District Court rejected these claims, 225 F.Supp. 507, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 341 F.2d 859. With Rees' consent, his counsel then filed in this Court on June 23, 1965, the present petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision, and the petition is therefore properly before us for disposition.
Nearly one month after this petition had been filed, Rees directed his counsel to withdraw the petition and forgo any further legal proceedings. Counsel advised this Court that he could not conscientiously accede to these instructions without a psychiatric evaluation of Rees because evidence cast doubt on Rees' mental competency. After further letters from Rees to his counsel and to this Court maintaining his position, counsel had Rees examined by a psychiatrist who filed a detailed report concluding that Rees was mentally incompetent. Psychiatrists selected by the State who sought to examine Rees at the state prison found themselves thwarted by his lack of cooperation, but expressed doubts that he was insane.
Whether or not Rees shall be allowed in these circumstances to withdraw his certiorari petition is a question which it is ultimately the responsibility of this Court to determine, in the resolution of which Rees' mental competence is of prime importance. We have therefore determined that, in aid of the proper exercise of this Court's certiorari jurisdiction, the Federal District Court in which this proceeding commenced should upon due notice to the State and all other interested parti...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tabler v. Lumpkin
...and appeals so that an execution date could be set. Because a petitioner unquestionably has a right under Rees v. Peyton , 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966), to waive representation and further appeals if he competently and voluntarily chooses to do so, the Court appointed ......
-
United States v. Dioguardi, 71 Cr. 558.
...criminal cases, only the defendant is subject to the court's control. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4245. See also Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1965) (per curiam); United States v. Baird, 414 F.2d 700, 710 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1005, 90 S.Ct. 559, 24 L.......
-
Goode v. Wainwright, 82-5244
...from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises. Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). We need not and do not decide whether the Rees test, which related to a defendant's desire to withdraw his p......
-
Franz v. Lockhart, PB-B-88-444.
...waiver standard is deemed to be more rigorous than that required by the United States Constitution under Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). 296 Ark., at 188-89, 754 S.W.2d 839. Furthermore, the Arkansas Supreme Court "must review a lower court's d......
-
Emotional competence, "rational understanding," and the criminal defendant.
...criminal charges indefinitely over the head of one who will never have a chance to prove his innocence"). (51.) See Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 313-14 (1966) (per (52.) Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). The standard for competence to be executed is a relatively minimal one, looking......
-
Review Proceedings
...2939. See SECTION 2254 RULES, Rule 4, supra note 2821. 2940. See id. at Rule 5(c). 2941. See id. at Rule 5(d). 2942. See Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 313-14 (1966) (per curiam) (court must determine petitioner competency and ability to make rational choice before granting voluntary dismiss......
-
Mitigation Evidence and Capital Cases in Washington: Proposals for Change
...Id. at 608, 23 P.3d at 1072. 101. See, e.g., Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012 (1976); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983); Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 102. See Christy Chandler, Voluntary Executions, 50 STAN. L. REV. 1897, 1909 (1998). 103. Id. (citing Fairchild v. Norris, 869 F. Supp. 672 ......
-
Standards and procedures for determining whether a defendant is competent to make the ultimate choice - death; Ohio's new precedent for death row "volunteers" standards.
...883 (S.C. 1994); Judy v. State, 416 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 1981); Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1993). (132) Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966). (133) Id. at 313. (134) Id. (135) Id. (136) Id. (137) Rees, 384 U.S. at 314. (138) Id. The Supreme Court merely stated that "it will be a......