|
|
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)
Schick v. Reed No. 73-5677 Argued October 23, 1974 Decided December 23, 1974 419 U.S. 256
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner, sentenced to death, under Art. 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by a court-martial for murder, attacked the validity of a Presidential commutation to life imprisonment (under which petitioner had served 20 years) conditioned on petitioner’s never being paroled. The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, additionally rejecting petitioner’s contention that this Court’s intervening decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, required that petitioner be resentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole, the alternative punishment for murder under Art. 118.
Held: The conditional commutation of petitioner’s death sentence was within the President’s powers under Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." Pp. 260-268.
(a) The executive pardoning power under the Constitution, which has consistently adhered to the English common law practice, historically included the power to commute sentences on conditions not specifically authorized by statute. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150; Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307. Pp. 260-266.
(b) Since the pardoning power derives from the Constitution alone, it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by any statute, including Art. 118, and Furman v. Georgia, supra, did not affect the conditional commutation of petitioner’s sentence. Pp. 266-268.
157 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 483 F.2d 1266, affirmed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., joined, post, p. 268.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) in 419 U.S. 256 419 U.S. 257. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LRW7UK9NQERPBSB.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), in 419 U.S. 256, page 419 U.S. 257. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LRW7UK9NQERPBSB.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974). cited in 1974, 419 U.S. 256, pp.419 U.S. 257. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=LRW7UK9NQERPBSB.
|