Ford v. Wainwright
Citations
- 477 U.S. 399
- 106 S. Ct. 2595
- 91 L. Ed. 2d 335
- 1986 U.S. LEXIS 64
- 54 U.S.L.W. 4799
About this case
Ford v. Wainwright
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed ; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.[1]
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
**Ford v. Wainwright **
Contents
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_v._Wainwright&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of first degree murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida . On July 21, 1974, Ford shot and killed Officer Walter Ilyankoff during a Red Lobster restaurant robbery in Fort Lauderdale . One of his co-defendants, Alvin Lewis, pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life.[2] In 1982, while on death row , Ford's mental health diminished to a point resembling paranoid schizophrenia . Ford began referring to himself as Pope John Paul III and reported such accomplishments as thwarting a vast Ku Klux Klan conspiracy to bury dead prisoners inside the prison walls, foiling an attempt by prison guards to torture his female relatives inside the prison, and personally appointing nine new justices to the Florida Supreme Court . Ford also claimed he was "free to go whenever [he] wanted" because he theorized that anyone who executed him would, in turn, be executed.
A panel of three psychiatrists was eventually called to examine Ford's behavior, and it concluded that while Ford had psychosis and various mental disorders , he was still capable of understanding the nature of the death penalty and the effect that such a penalty would have on him. Florida Governor Bob Graham acted without further comment on the panel's findings but in accord with a Florida statute in signing a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford sued the secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections , Louie L. Wainwright .[1]
Opinion
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_v._Wainwright&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Opinion")
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Marshall , reviewed the evolving standards of the Eighth Amendment to be those consistent with "the progress of a maturing society ", therefore not tolerant of acts traditionally considered "savage and inhumane", as the execution of the mentally insane was in early English and American common law. The Court reasoned that executing the insane did not serve any penological goals and that Florida's procedures for determining competency were inadequate. Thus, the Court made a preliminary finding that the Eighth Amendment bars states from inflicting capital punishment upon insane persons.[1]
The Court then further addressed the procedural issues present in making a determination of insanity for Eighth Amendment concerns. The court found that such a determination could not be left solely to the executive branch , as was done via the Florida Statute allowing then-Governor Graham to sign Ford's death warrant solely on recommendation by an appointed committee of psychiatrists. Rather, the Court held that a proper judicial hearing, in which full procedural rights would be afforded, including the right to counsel and to cross-examine witnesses, was necessary for such a finding.[1]
In their dissents, Justices O'Connor and White claimed that execution of the insane was not per se unconstitutional. The Justices further commented, however, that states had a right to create certain protected liberties in state statutes, of which a prohibition on the execution of the insane was a liberty which could be validly created. Once validly created by a state, that liberty required the minimum due-process protections afforded to other constitutionally protected liberties, which sole action by the executive branch, as in this case, would still fail to provide.[1]
Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, stated a belief that in common-law tradition, it was actually the executive branch that was the sole arbiter of decisions involving the sanity of prisoners sentenced to death. In this respect, Justice Rehnquist felt that the majority had formed its opinion at the "expense of 'our common law heritage'".[1]
The inmate was transferred to Florida State Hospital for treatment after he was reevaluated and found to be incompetent to be executed.[3] [4]
In 1989, a federal district judge ruled that Ford was sane, but defense lawyers appealed that ruling.
The appeal was pending when Ford died of a respiratory illness on February 6, 1991, at 37.[5]
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_v._Wainwright&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: See also")
_Panetti v. Quarterman _ (2007)
_Penry v. Lynaugh _ (1989)
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_v._Wainwright&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: References")
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
- ↑ "Alvin Lewis, Petitioner vs. State of Florida, Respondents" (PDF). Florida Supreme Court.
- ↑ Executing the Mentally Ill: The Criminal Justice System and the Case of Alvin Ford . Sage. June 25, 1993. ISBN 9780803951501 . Retrieved October 3, 2007.
- ↑ "Executing the Mentally Ill" . Sage. April 22, 1986. Retrieved October 3, 2007.
- ↑ "Alvin Ford, 37, Dies; Stricken on Death Row" . The New York Times. March 9, 1991. Archived from the original on January 13, 2013. Retrieved
…
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits inflicting the death penalty on a prisoner who is insane
- holding that it is cruel and unusual to execute the insane
- holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing a person who is insane
- holding that the Eighth Amendment bars states from executing insane prisoners
- holding, in plurality opinion, that the execution of an inmate who becomes incompetent or insane after conviction and sentencing is violative of the Eighth Amendment and due process
- explaining that competency-to-be-executed statute codifies constitutional standards delineated by Supreme Court in Ford and Panetti
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Marshall Announced the Judgment of the Court And
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
929 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 2012-06-25· cited 6,816×
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court· 1989-04-17· cited 6,602×
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court· 1991-06-27· cited 4,521×
- Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court· 2005-03-01· cited 3,523×
- Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court· 2010-05-17· cited 3,477×
- Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 3,458×
- Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 2002-06-20· cited 3,384×
- Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court· 1993-01-25· cited 3,060×
- Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court· 1989-06-26· cited 2,957×
- Montgomery v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 2016-01-25· cited 2,780×
- McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court· 1987-06-08· cited 2,038×
- Panetti v. QuartermanSupreme Court· 2007-06-28· cited 1,422×
- Magwood v. PattersonSupreme Court· 2010-06-24· cited 932×
- Glossip v. GrossSupreme Court· 2015-06-29· cited 858×
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2004-10-19· cited 820×
- Commonwealth v. FearsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-02-19· cited 803×
- Colburn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1998-02-25· cited 754×
- People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-01-16· cited 653×
- Sawyer v. SmithSupreme Court· 1990-08-30· cited 646×
- Stewart v. Martinez-VillarealSupreme Court· 1998-05-18· cited 644×
Cites
48 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1976-07-22· cited 7,936×
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court· 1985-03-19· cited 6,903×
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 5,066×
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 5,026×
- Barefoot v. EstelleSupreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 4,617×
- Townsend v. SainSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 4,485×
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court· 1983-06-28· cited 4,242×
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court· 1983-02-22· cited 3,877×
- Meachum v. FanoSupreme Court· 1976-06-25· cited 3,743×
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court· 1981-08-28· cited 3,458×
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1985-02-26· cited 3,332×
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court· 1979-05-29· cited 3,299×
- Olim v. WakinekonaSupreme Court· 1983-04-26· cited 3,076×
- Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court· 1985-03-18· cited 3,068×
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court· 1966-03-21· cited 3,039×
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court· 1979-04-30· cited 3,004×
- Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1976-07-02· cited 2,907×
Other cases named Ford v. Wainwright
14 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-05-25· cited 32×
- Ford v. WainwrightFifth Circuit· 1976-02-04· cited 22×
- Ford v. WainwrightDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1982-06-04· cited 5×
- Ford v. WainwrightEleventh Circuit· 1985-01-17· cited 1×
- Ford v. WainwrightDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1983-01-27· cited 1×
- Ford v. WainwrightEleventh Circuit· 1984-11-09· cited 1×
- Ford v. WainwrightEleventh Circuit· 1984-11-09
- Ford v. WainwrightEleventh Circuit· 1985-06-03
- Ford v. WainwrightEleventh Circuit· 1986-11-10
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court of Florida· 1962-12-15
- Ford v. WainwrightDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1964-03-09
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1977-10-31
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1985-12-09
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1986-02-24
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.