Murel v. Court, 407 U.S. 355 (1972)

Per Curiam.

Petitioners were convicted of various state crimes and sentenced to fixed terms.of imprisonment. They were then committed to the Patuxent Institution in lieu of sentence, for an indeterminate period, pursuant to the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law, Md. Ann. Code, Art. 31B. They sought federal habeas corpus, challenging on constitutional grounds the criteria and procedures that led to their commitment, and the conditions of their confinement. They contend, inter alia, that the statutory standard for commitment is impermissibly vague, that they are entitled to put the government to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the compulsory psychiatric examination prescribed by the statute they were entitled to have the assistance of counsel and to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, and that they are being denied a constitutional right to treatment. The District Court denied relief sub nom. Sas v. Maryland, 295 F. Supp. 389 (Md. 1969), and the Court of Appeals affirmed sub nom. Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153 (CA4 1971).1 We granted certiorari, 404 U. S. 999

(1971), to consider whether, and to what extent, the constitutional guarantees invoked by petitioners apply to this kind of commitment process. After briefing and oral argument, it now appears that this case does not present these issues in a manner that warrants the exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court.

1. Of the four petitioners, one has been unconditionally released from confinement, and the other three are subject to criminal sentences that have not yet expired, and that would bar their release from custody even if their claims were to prevail.2 This fact, while not necessarily dispositive of all the claims presented by these petitioners, casts those claims in a different light, not contemplated by our original grant of the writ.3 Cf. McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, ante, p. 245.

2. Under our decisions in Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966), Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504 (1972), and Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715 (1972), petitioners’ challenge to the Maryland Defective Delinquency Law should be considered in relation to the

criteria, procedures, and treatment that the State of Maryland, makes available to other persons, not “defective delinquents,” committed for compulsory psychiatric treatment. We are informed that the statutes governing civil commitment, in Maryland are presently undergoing substantial revision, designed to provide greater substantive and procedural safeguards to committed persons. Accordingly, it seems a particularly inopportune time for this Court to consider a comprehensivé challenge to the Defective Delinquency Law.

In these circumstances, the writ of fore dismissed as improvidently granted.

Mr. Justice Douglas,-

dissenting.

Patuxent Institution is a special prison used by the State of Maryland for the incarceration of “defective delinquents.” Individuals who have demonstrated “persistent aggravated anti-social or criminal behavior,” who have “a propensity toward criminal activity,” and who have “either such intellectual deficiency or emotional unbalance” as to present “an actual danger to society” may be confined at Patuxent. Md. Ann. Code, Art 31B, §5(1971). The initial determination that one is a defective delinquent is made judicially and, for those confined to Patuxent after such a determination, there is the right to seek judicial redetermination of their status at three-year intervals. Id., §6 et seq. One of the objectives of Patuxent supposedly is to provide treatment for the inmates so that they may be returned to society. Director v. Daniels, 243 Md. 16, 31-32, 221 A. 2d 397, 406 (1966). Should a defective delinquent Pot receive treatment, or should the treatment prove inadequate to return him to society, the inmate might

well remain in Patuxent for the remainder of his life. See McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, ante, p. 245.

Petitioners brought this action in the District Court challenging various aspects of their confinement át Patuxent. The District Court depied relief, Sas v. Maryland, 295 F. Supp. 389 (Md. 1969); the Court of Appeals affirmed, Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153 (CA4 1971); and we granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. 404 U. S. 999. Because Í base my decision on narrow grounds, I do not reach the broader issues tendered by petitioners.

When a State moves to deprive an individual"-of his liberty, to-incarcerate him indefinitely, or to place him behind bars for what may be the rest of his life, the. . Federal Constitution requires that it meet a more rigorous burdén óf proof than that employed by Maryland to commit defective delinquents. The Defective Delinquency Law does not specify the burden of proof necessary to commit an individual to Patuxent, but the Maryland Court of Appeals has determined that the State need only prove its case by the “fair preponderance of the evidence.” E. g., Crews v. Director, 245 Md. 174, 225 A. 2d 436 (1967); Termin v. Director, 243 Md. 689, 221 A. 2d 658 (1966); Dickerson v. Director, 235 Md. 668, 202 A. 2d 765 (1964); Purks v. State, 226 Md. 43, 171 A. 2d 726 (1961); Blizzard v. State, 218 Md. 384, 147 A. 2d 227 (1958); and see Sas v. Maryland, 334 F. 2d 506 (CA4 1964); Walker v. Director, 6 Md. App. 206, 250 A. 2d 900 (1969). Petitioners have thus been taken from their families and deprived of their consti.tutionally protected liberty under the same standard óf proof applicable to run-of-the-mill automobile negligence actions.1

The Court of Appeals disapproved this standard but, becausé it felt it insignificant, nonetheless held it to be consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause:

of proof should be left to the state. A legislative [sic] choice of the preponderance standard, the same standard governing civil commitments of mentally ill persons who have no history of criminality, ought not to be held in violation of due process requirements when we have no firm foundation for an evaluation of the practical effects of the choice.” Tippett v. Maryland, supra, at 1158-1159.

Judge Sobeloff dissented in part and would have held the State to a more stringent burden:

In considering the constitutionally mandated burdens of proof applicable to particular types of cases, our decisions have attached greater significance to the varying standards than did the Court of. Appeals below. In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 520-521 (1958), we said:

construction of a statute or interpretation of a line of precedents. Thus the procedures by which the facts of the case are determined assume, an importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive rule of law to be applied. And the more important the ' rights at stake the more important must be the procedural safeguards surrounding tliose rights.”

And see In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).

The reason for our continued concern over the applicable burden of proof is that a lawsuit — like any other factfinding process — is necessarily susceptible of error in the making of factual determinations. The nature of the rights implicated in the lawsuit thus determines the allocation and degree of the burden of proof and consequently the party upon whom, the risk of errors in the factfinding process will be placed. We applied this reasoning in Speiser, where First Amendment rights were implicated:

In Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U. S. 29 (1971), Me. Justice Brennan, in an opinion joined by The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun, again applied these principles and reasoned that the important First Amendment intérests present in defamation actions required plaintiffs to meet an extraordinary burden of proof. Justice Brennan said, “In libel cases ... an erroneous verdict for the plaintiff [is] most serious. . . . [T]he possibility of such error . . . would create a strong impetus toward self-censorship which the First Amendment cannot tolerate.” Id., at 50. Mr. Justice Brennan thus concluded that a more rigorous burden of proof was necessary to safeguard the important First Amendment rights involved:

In re Winship, supra, dealt with an individual’s personal liberty which we had characterized as “an interest of transcending value” in Speiser, 357 U. S., at 525. There, we determined that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” was constitutionally required “because of the possibility that [an individual might] lose his liberty” and because of the stigma of a criminal conviction. 397 U. S., at 363. And see Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U. S. 276, 285 (1966).

In the present case, petitioners were deprived of their most basic right — their personal liberty — under a burden of proof which was constitutionally inadequate. The

right to liberty is. one of transcendent value. Without it, other constitutionally protected rights such as the right of free expression and the right of privacy become largely meaningless. Yet Maryland has deprived petitioners of this right, using a burden of proof which fáils to give sufficiént weight to the interests involved.

It is no answer to say that petitioners’ commitments were in “civil” proceedings and that the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required only in “criminal” cases. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967), and In re Winship, supra, specifically rejected this distinction and looked instead at the interests involved and .the actual nature of the proceedings. See also Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967). Nor would it be persuasive to argue that the difficulty in proving one’s state of mind requires that the State be afforded the benefit of a lesser burden of proof. Proving a state of mind is no more difficult than many other issues with which courts and juries grapple each day.2 An individual who is confronted with

the possibility of commitment, moreover, runs the risk of losing his most important right — his liberty.

Speisér and Winship indicate that an individual’s personal liberty is an interest of transcending value for the deprivation of which the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I would follow established precedent and hold that a State may not subject individuals to lengthy — if not indefinite — incarceration under a lesser burden of proof. Accordingly,- I would reverse the judgment below.