Supreme Court of the United States, 1967

Pierce v. Turner

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 27, 1967 · Douglas

386 U.S. 947 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Petitioner pro se. Phil L. Hansen, Attorney General of Utah, for respondént.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Ray Wayne Pierce v. John W. Turner, Warden, Utah State Prison (10th Cir. 1968)
Pierce v. Turner (District Court, D. Utah 1967)
Hoover v. Wainwright (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1967)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas:

Denial of certiorari is proper in this cáse. I see no constitutional bar to a state court treating a petition ;for habeas corpus as a petition for rehearing where the habeas corpus petition raises, the same questions as ah earlier appeal. ’ But federal habeas corpus is not so cramped, and the petitioner can, of course, petition a federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The underlying question is whether the M’Nagkten test of legal insanity is a constitutionally permissible test of criminal liability in light of the contemporary state of knowledge on the problems of insanity. Should that test give way to the 128 years of experience in the fields of psychiatry and *948psychology since its formulation? Should it be replaced by the more sophisticated and realistic Durham test (Durham v. United States, 214 F. 2d 862) or some other test more in keeping with due process?

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.