CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-RIGHT OF CONDEMNED PRISONER TO A HEARING ON CLAIM OF SUPERVENING INSANITY

Authors

Robert P. Griffin S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Petitioner was convicted of murder in a Georgia court and sentenced to die by electrocution. He made application to the governor to postpone execution on the ground that he had become insane after conviction. The governor, acting under authority of a state statute, appointed three physicians who conducted an examination of petitioner and found him sane. Thereupon, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court contending that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitled him to a hearing on his insanity claim before a judicial or administrative tribunal at which he could offer evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel. Dismissal of his petition was affirmed by the state supreme court. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, held, affirmed. Georgia's action in constituting its governor as a special tribunal to make the final determination regarding the sanity of a person about to be executed is not a denial of due process of law. One justice dissented. Solesbee v. Balcom, (U.S. 1950) 70 S.Ct. 457.

Recommended Citation

Robert P. Griffin S.Ed., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-RIGHT OF CONDEMNED PRISONER TO A HEARING ON CLAIM OF SUPERVENING INSANITY, 48 Mich. L. Rev. 1189 (1950).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol48/iss8/13