|
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
|
|
|
<case id="50786" source="Oyez API" schema="simple-legal-case-xml-v1"><name>Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court</name><docketNumber>70-5276</docketNumber><term>1971</term><court><name>Burger Court (1972-1975)</name><identifier>burger4</identifier><href>https://api.oyez.org/courts/burger4</href></court><parties><firstParty role="Petitioner">Albert Delanor Murel, et al.</firstParty><secondParty role="Respondent">Baltimore City Criminal Court, et al.</secondParty></parties><dates><date type="argued">1972-03-28</date><date type="argued">1972-03-29</date><date type="decided">1972-06-19</date></dates><citation><volume>407</volume><page>355</page><year>1972</year><href>https://api.oyez.org/case_citation/case_citation/14714</href><justia_url>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/355/</justia_url></citation><jurisdiction>Writ of <i>certiorari</i></jurisdiction><facts><html><p>Maryland trial courts convicted Albert Murel and the other petitioners of various crimes and sentenced them to fixed terms of imprisonment. The petitioners were “defective delinquents,” so each was committed to the Patuxent Institution, a mental health facility, pursuant to the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law. </p>
|
|
|
<p>The petitioners sought a federal habeas corpus in district court. They challenged the conditions of their confinement and the procedures that led to their commitment. They also argued that Maryland's statutory standard for the commitment of "delinquent defendants" was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's opinion. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. </p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Maryland trial courts convicted Albert Murel and the other petitioners of various crimes and sentenced them to fixed terms of imprisonment. The petitioners were “defective delinquents,” so each was committed to the Patuxent Institution, a mental health facility, pursuant to the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law.
|
|
|
The petitioners sought a federal habeas corpus in district court. They challenged the conditions of their confinement and the procedures that led to their commitment. They also argued that Maryland's statutory standard for the commitment of "delinquent defendants" was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's opinion. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.</text></facts><questions /><conclusion><html><p>Dismissed. In a per curiam opinion, the Court wrote that it had decided to hear the case in order to consider whether constitutional protections apply to the commitment process set forth in the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law. After briefing and oral argument, the Court concluded that the case did not present those issues in a manner that warranted the review of the Supreme Court. The Court also concluded that pending changes to the Maryland law made it an inopportune time for the Court to issue a comprehensive order concerning the Defective Delinquency Law. </p>
|
|
|
<p> Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that whenever a State moves to deprive an individual of liberty, the Constitution requires the state to meet a more rigorous burden of proof than Maryland employed to commit defective delinquents. Justice Douglas would have reversed the lower courts’ judgments. </p>
|
|
|
</html><text>Dismissed. In a per curiam opinion, the Court wrote that it had decided to hear the case in order to consider whether constitutional protections apply to the commitment process set forth in the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law. After briefing and oral argument, the Court concluded that the case did not present those issues in a manner that warranted the review of the Supreme Court. The Court also concluded that pending changes to the Maryland law made it an inopportune time for the Court to issue a comprehensive order concerning the Defective Delinquency Law.
|
|
|
Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that whenever a State moves to deprive an individual of liberty, the Constitution requires the state to meet a more rigorous burden of proof than Maryland employed to commit defective delinquents. Justice Douglas would have reversed the lower courts’ judgments.</text></conclusion><advocates><advocate for="for the petitioners"><name>Karl G. Feissner</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/karl_g_feissner</href></advocate><advocate for="for the respondents"><name>Henry R. Lord</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/henry_r_lord</href></advocate><advocate for=""><name>Francis B. Burch</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/francis_b_burch</href></advocate><advocate for=""><name>Andrew E. Greenwald</name><href>https://api.oyez.org/people/andrew_e_greenwald</href></advocate></advocates><decisions><decision type="per curiam" winning_party=""><description /><votes majority="8" minority="1"><vote opinion_type="dissent" vote="minority" seniority="2"><justice>William O. Douglas</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_o_douglas</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="4"><justice>Potter Stewart</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/potter_stewart</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="6"><justice>Thurgood Marshall</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/thurgood_marshall</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="3"><justice>William J. Brennan, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_j_brennan_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="5"><justice>Byron R. White</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/byron_r_white</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="1"><justice>Warren E. Burger</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/warren_e_burger</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="7"><justice>Harry A. Blackmun</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/harry_a_blackmun</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="8"><justice>Lewis F. Powell, Jr.</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/lewis_f_powell_jr</justice_href></vote><vote opinion_type="none" vote="majority" seniority="9"><justice>William H. Rehnquist</justice><justice_href>https://api.oyez.org/people/william_h_rehnquist</justice_href></vote></votes></decision></decisions><source><href>https://api.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-5276</href><raw_file>D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\json_data\api.oyez.org_cases_1971_70-5276.json</raw_file></source></case> |
