However in 2013 they made a nine to zero decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas so their earlier indecision couldn’t be used as a precedent in other cases in which incompetent defendants might evade the death penalty.
(meta data) TITLE: Opinion recap: Rees clarified, after forty-six years - SCOTUSblog SCOTUS Blog Search Blog or Docket Lyle Denniston Independent Contractor Reporter Posted Tue, January 8th, 2013 12:59 pm Bio & Post Archive » # Opinion recap: Rees clarified, after forty-six years Posted Tue, January 8th, 2013 12:59 pm by Lyle Denniston For more than forty-six years, the Supreme Court's brief rulings in the Virginia death row case of Melvin Davis Rees, Jr., have remained in the Supreme Court's records, but few have paid attention to them since and their meaning was never clarified. The Justices finally did so on Tuesday, ruling that the actions it took in Rees v. Peyton in 1966 and 1967 did not give state prisoners a right to delay their federal court challenges until they are mentally competent enough to proceed. No federal law, the Court decided unanimously, gives an incompetent state prisoner any right to keep a habeas case on hold until he can regain mental understanding of what is going on. The habeas case can go ahead with just the lawyers involved, the ruling said. Although the Court did not say so explicitly, the new decision in Ryan v. Gonzales (10-930) also appeared to mean that state prisoners have no freestanding right to be competent so that they can take part when their case gets into a federal habeas court — an issue separate from whether they had a right to a delay while they remain incompetent. (Decided along with the Ryan case, from Arizona, was a companion case from Ohio, Tibbals v. Carter, 11-218.) Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the nine-to-zero decision. The Rees case of nearly five decades ago has been one of the Court's most abiding mysteries. After ordering a test of his mental capacity, and then being told that Rees was incompetent, the Court in 1967 simply placed his case in a state of perpetual inactivity — until Rees died in prison, some twenty-eight years later, in 1995. Then, the Court responded by dismissing his case in two words. Rees v. Peyton came back before the Court this Term, though, in death row cases involving Ernest Valencia Gonzales of Arizona and Sean Carter of Ohio. Gonzales was given a death sentence after killing a man and wounding his wife in a stabbing attack during a burglary of their home, and Carter was sentenced to die for the murder and rape of his adoptive grandmother. The Ninth Circuit Court and the Sixth Circuit Court, relying on different federal statutes and both relying in part on what the Supreme Court had done in Rees v. Peyton, had concluded that a finding of incompetence for both men justified a postponement of their federal habeas cases until they could regain competence. The Ninth Circuit cited a law that gives a right to a free lawyer in a habeas case involving a death row inmate, and the Sixth Circuit relied on a law that gives federal judges the authority to order the hospitalization of a mentally incompetent individual facing a criminal trial. Justice Thomas's opinion, significantly playing down the role that a convicted individual may play in a federal habeas case, concluded that neither statute authorized stays of habeas proceedings. Most such cases, the opinion said, are based upon the record made in state court as the case went through a trial and state appeals. "Attorneys," the Court said, "are quite capable of reviewing the state-court record, identifying legal errors, and marshaling relevant arguments, even without their clients' assistance." No one who is incompetent at the time can be tried, the opinion noted, but habeas proceedings are not the equivalent of a criminal trial. The Court also said that an attempt to tie the mental competency issue to the right to a lawyer is a flawed approach, since there is no Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer during a habeas case, and so the only possible source of a judge's authority to assure that the convicted state prisoner can consult with his lawyer during a habeas case would be a federal statute, and none exists. Turning to its opinion and orders in the Rees case, the opinion said those did not establish a statutory right to a delay of habeas proceedings for an incompetent individual. Its first order in that case, in 1966, the Court said, "concerned whether an incompetent habeas petitioner may withdraw his certiorari petition, and it provides no clear answer even to that question." Similarly, the second, brief order in 1967, Thomas wrote, "offered no rationale for the decision to hold Rees' petition. As a result, Rees offers no support for federal habeas petitioners seeking to stay district court proceedings." Although the lawyers involved in the Gonzales case told the Court that these new cases only involved the issue of staying a habeas case while a state prisoner is incompetent, so the Court need not decide the question of whether there is a separate right to competency during habeas. But, in a footnote, the Thomas opinion implied that the grant of review did embrace that question, too, and the opinion left little doubt that no such right exists. The decision did not entirely take away the authority of federal judges, using their equitable powers separate from any statutory text, to order a delay in a habeas case when a state prisoner is found to be incompetent at the time. Leaving the choice of when to exercise that power to federal judges, the opinion remarked: "We do not presume that district courts need unsolicited advice from us on how to manage their dockets." Still, Justice Thomas said that district judges do have the authority to rule on whether a claim made in habeas could benefit from having the prisoner able to communicate with his lawyer about it, but in considering whether to use that power, judges should take into account whether the individual is likely "to regain competence in the foreseeable future." If there is "no reasonable hope of competence," a habeas case should not be delayed, the Court concluded. To issue a stay in that situation, it added, "merely frustrates the state's attempts to defend its presumptively valid judgment." This decision, in plain English: An individual who is convicted of a crime in state court has a number of opportunities to challenge the conviction and the sentence, first in state court and, if that is unsuccessful, in a federal court. In federal court, that right is found in the ancient promise that a person being held in captivity by the government has a right to compel the government to justify that detention. That is called the right to a "writ of habeas corpus" — a Latin phrase that generally translates as "you have the body" and must justify holding it. If lawyers for a state prisoner have taken the case into federal court, the case plays out there under a series of legal rules. Sometimes, those rules are not entirely clear, and courts have to clarify them. In two cases decided on Tuesday, the Supreme Court was asked to clarify those rules when the state prisoner involved in the case is found to have become mentally incompetent, and thus is unable to help his lawyer pursue the legal challenge to his conviction and sentence. Two federal appeals courts had ruled that, if the prisoner has in fact become incompetent, the federal case should simply be put on hold until that individual regains mental competence. Without the capacity to aid his lawyer, the prisoner's challenge is essentially undermined, and so is his right to a lawyer, those lower courts ruled. The Supreme Court decided unanimously that the lower courts were wrong. There is no constitutional right to have a lawyer at all during federal court review of state convictions, so any right to a lawyer, and the consequences of having access to a lawyer, must depend upon whether there is a federal law that promises legal assistance while an individual is mentally incompetent. There is no such law, the Court ruled, that assures that an individual has a right to aid his lawyer during the federal proceeding when the individual is incompetent, so there is no right to have the case put on hold until the individual might regain the mental capacity to participate. In reaching its decision, the Court noted that it had once put a Virginia state prisoner's case on hold for twenty-eight years, because the man was incompetent. But it concluded that the actions it took in that case did not set a precedent for delaying a federal case involving a state prisoner who had become incompetent. Posted in Ryan v. Gonzales, Tibbals v. Carter, Featured, Merits Cases, Analysis Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Opinion recap: Rees clarified, after forty-six years, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 8, 2013, 12:59 PM), #### Featured Posts # SCOTUS spotlight: William Jay on oral advocacy – SCOTUStalk # SCOTUS spotlight: Paul Smith on oral advocacy – SCOTUStalk # Response of Michael Dreeben to tributes upon his leaving the Office of the Solicitor General – Michael Dreeben #### Sponsored by Casetext #### SCOTUStalk see all #### Email Digest Sign-Up Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email. #### Merits Case Pages and Archives This term's merits cases Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVriesApple Inc. v. PepperAzar v. Allina Health ServicesBiestek v. BerryhillBNSF Railway Company v. LoosBox v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc.Bucklew v. PrecytheCarpenter v. MurphyCity of Escondido, California v. EmmonsCochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. HuntCulbertson v. BerryhillDawson v. SteagerDepartment of Commerce v. New YorkEmulex Corp. v. VarjabedianFlowers v. MississippiFood Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader MediaFort Bend County, Texas v. DavisFourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.comFranchise Tax Board of California v. HyattFrank v. GaosGamble v. United StatesGarza v. IdahoGundy v. United StatesHelsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.Herrera v. WyomingHome Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. JacksonIancu v. BrunettiJam v. International Finance Corp.Kisor v. WilkieKnick v. Township of Scott, PennsylvaniaLamone v. BenisekLamps Plus Inc. v. VarelaLorenzo v. Securities and Exchange CommissionMadison v. AlabamaManhattan Community Access Corp. v. HalleckMaryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist AssociationMcDonough v. SmithMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. AlbrechtMission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLCMitchell v. WisconsinMont v. United StatesMoore v. TexasMount Lemmon Fire District v. GuidoNew Prime Inc. v. OliveiraNielsen v. PreapNieves v. BartlettNorth Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family TrustNutraceutical Corp. v. LambertObduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLPParker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. NewtonPDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.Quarles v. United StatesRehaif v. United StatesRepublic of Sudan v. HarrisonReturn Mail Inc. v. United States Postal ServiceRimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.Rucho v. Common CauseShoop v. HillSmith v. BerryhillStokeling v. United StatesSturgeon v. FrostTaggart v. LorenzenTennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. ThomasThacker v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityThe American Legion v. American Humanist AssociationThe Dutra Group v. BattertonTimbs v. IndianaUnited States v. DavisUnited States v. HaymondUnited States v. SimsUnited States v. StittVirginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-HillVirginia Uranium, Inc. v. WarrenWashington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceYovino v. Rizo Next term's merits cases Allen v. CooperAltitude Express Inc. v. ZardaAtlantic Richfield Co. v. ChristianAurelius Investment, LLC v. Puerto RicoBabb v. WilkieBanister v. DavisBarton v. BarrBostock v. Clayton County, GeorgiaCITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned MediaCounty of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife FundDepartment of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaDex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LPEspinoza v. Montana Department of RevenueFinancial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLCGE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLCGeorgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. Guerrero-Lasprilla v. BarrHernandez v. MesaHolguin-Hernandez v. United StatesIntel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. SulymaKahler v. KansasKansas v. GarciaKansas v. GloverKelly v. United StatesLand of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United StatesLucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc. Maine Community Health Options v. United StatesMathena v. MalvoMcAleenan v. VidalMcKinney v. ArizonaModa Health Plan Inc. v. United StatesMonasky v. TaglieriNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New YorkOfficial Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, LLCOpati v. Republic of SudanOvalles v. BarrPeter v. NantKwest Inc.R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionRamos v. LouisianaRetirement Plans Committee of IBM v. JanderRitzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLCRodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. Rotkiske v. KlemmShular v. United StatesThole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Trump v. NAACPUnited States v. Aurelius Investment, LLCUTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico Aug 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 Apr 2019 Mar 2019 Feb 2019 Jan 2019 Dec 2018 Nov 2018 Oct 2018 Sept 2018 Aug 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017 Oct 2017 Sept 2017 Aug 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 Apr 2017 Mar 2017 Feb 2017 Jan 2017 Dec 2016 Nov 2016 Oct 2016 Sept 2016 Aug 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 Apr 2016 Mar 2016 Feb 2016 Jan 2016 Dec 2015 Nov 2015 Oct 2015 Sept 2015 Aug 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 Apr 2015 Mar 2015 Feb 2015 Jan 2015 Dec 2014 Nov 2014 Oct 2014 Sept 2014 Aug 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 Apr 2014 Mar 2014 Feb 2014 Jan 2014 Dec 2013 Nov 2013 Oct 2013 Sept 2013 Aug 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 Apr 2013 Mar 2013 Feb 2013 Jan 2013 Dec 2012 Nov 2012 Oct 2012 Sept 2012 Aug 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 Apr 2012 Mar 2012 Feb 2012 Jan 2012 Dec 2011 Nov 2011 Oct 2011 Sept 2011 Aug 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 Apr 2011 Mar 2011 Feb 2011 Jan 2011 Dec 2010 Nov 2010 Oct 2010 Sept 2010 Aug 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 Apr 2010 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sept 2009 Aug 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 Apr 2009 Mar 2009 Feb 2009 Jan 2009 Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sept 2008 Aug 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 Apr 2008 Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Jan 2008 Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sept 2007 Aug 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sept 2006 Aug 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 Apr 2006 Mar 2006 Feb 2006 Jan 2006 Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sept 2005 Aug 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 Apr 2005 Mar 2005 Feb 2005 Round-upSpecial Features Merits Cases Cases in the Pipeline What's Happening Now Emergency appeals and applications Academic Round-up Breaking News Book Reviews Capital Cases Cases and Controversies Editor's Notes Empirical SCOTUS Event Announcements Plain English / Cases Made Simple SCOTUS for law students Supreme Court history This Week at the Court Everything Else Term Snapshot #### This Week at the Court The justices are on their summer recess. #### Major Cases Department of Commerce v. New YorkThe secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation for his decision. Kisor v. WilkieAuer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency's reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled. Rucho v. Common CausePartisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. The American Legion v. American Humanist AssociationThe Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Gamble v. United StatesThe dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the "same offence" for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.see all this term's cases » #### Recent Special Features Symposium on the Roberts Court after Kennedy Tributes to retiring Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben Tributes to Justice John Paul Stevens Symposium on the court's ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York Symposium on the court's ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek Symposium on the court's ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie Symposium on the court's ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association Symposium on what's next in June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee #### Statistical Snapshot Cases argued Cases decided Summary reversals Merits cases granted to date see all » #### Live Blog Archives Orders | June 28, 2019 Opinions | June 27, 2019 Opinions | June 26, 2019 Orders and opinions | June 24, 2019 Opinions | June 21, 2019 Opinions | June 20, 2019 Orders and opinions | June 17, 2019 Orders and opinions | June 10, 2019 Orders and opinions | June 3, 2019 Orders and opinions | May 28, 2019 Orders and opinions | May 20, 2019 Orders and opinions | May 13, 2019 Orders and opinions | April 29, 2019 Opinions | April 24, 2019 Opinions | April 23, 2019 Orders and opinions | April 1, 2019 Opinions | March 27, 2019 Opinions | March 26, 2019 Opinions | March 20, 2019 Opinions | March 19, 2019 Orders and opinions | March 4, 2019 Opinions | February 27, 2019 (with Casetext's Pablo Arredondo) Opinions | February 26, 2019 (with Casetext's Jake Heller) Opinions | February 20, 2019 Orders and opinions | January 22, 2019 Opinions | January 15, 2019 Opinions | January 8, 2019 Day five of confirmation hearing | September 27, 2018 Day four of confirmation hearing | September 7, 2018 Day three of confirmation hearing | September 6, 2018 Day two of confirmation hearing | September 5, 2018 Day one of confirmation hearing | September 4, 2018 See all #### Twitter Feed Tweets by @SCOTUSblog At a Glance #### Majority Opinions by Author #### Voting Breakdown Argued Cases #### Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions #### Calendar: August 2019 Full Calendar Submit Event #### Aug. 2019 Orders/Opinions #### Download our App in the Apple Store #### Videos see all Justice Ginsburg discusses OT 2018 On July 24, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about the previous Supreme Court term with Duke University School of Law Professor Neil Siegel in Washington, D.C. #### Peabody Award Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media. #### Sigma Delta Chi Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision. #### National Press Club Award Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision. #### Silver Gavel Award Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public's understanding of the law and the legal system. #### American Gavel Award Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system. #### Webby Award Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet. This website may use cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. Accept Read MorePrivacy & Cookies Policy #### Always Enabled non- necessary
train27784
Melvin Rees
Misc..
When apprehended for the Jackson murder, Rees was living with Pat Barrington who had a dual role in the Ed Wood-scripted Orgy of the Dead (1965).   They met in D.C. in 1959 when she was stripping there as Vivian Storm.   They lived together in Hyattville, MD, and moved further south in 1960. Rees' habeas corpus case reached the Supreme Court in 1967 due to his being incompetent—he was diagnosed a schizophrenic—but SCOTUS put their decision on hold until his death decades later, at which point they just put a lid on it with two words: “Certiorari dismissed.”  