Biddle v. Perovich
274 U.S. 480, 1927 U.S. LEXIS 45, 47 S. Ct. 664 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President's constitutional power to grant pardons includes the authority to commute a sentence to a lesser penalty, such as from death to life imprisonment, without the consent of the convict. This power is an executive function exercised for the public welfare, not a private act of grace requiring acceptance.
Facts:
- Vuco Perovich was convicted of first-degree murder in Alaska.
- On September 15, 1905, Perovich was sentenced to death by hanging.
- After several respites, President Taft executed a document on June 5, 1909, purporting to 'commute the sentence' of Perovich to life imprisonment.
- Following the commutation, Perovich was transferred from a jail in Alaska to a federal penitentiary to serve the life sentence.
- In 1918 and again in 1921, Perovich applied for a full pardon, acknowledging in his applications that his sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment.
Procedural Posture:
- Vuco Perovich was convicted of murder in a federal court in Alaska and his death sentence was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
- On February 20, 1925, Perovich filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing his imprisonment was illegal.
- The District Court judge granted the writ and ordered that Perovich be set free.
- The government appealed the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit, uncertain on the question of law, certified the question of the President's authority to commute the sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President have the authority under the pardon power in Article II of the Constitution to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment without the prisoner's consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Holmes
Yes. The President's power to grant pardons under the Constitution includes the authority to commute a sentence from death to life imprisonment without the convict's consent. A pardon in the United States is not a private act of grace but a constitutional power exercised for the public welfare. The determination of punishment is a matter of public interest, not private choice; therefore, just as the original sentence was imposed without the convict's consent, a reduction of that sentence does not require it. The power to pardon for an offense must include the lesser power to substitute a less severe punishment, and it is universally understood that life imprisonment is a lesser penalty than death.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the nature of the presidential pardon power as an instrument of public policy rather than a private grant that can be rejected. It distinguishes a commutation, which is a unilateral reduction of a sentence, from a full pardon that may carry an imputation of guilt (as in Burdick v. United States), which a person might wish to refuse. The ruling prevents the anomalous situation where a prisoner could demand to be executed against the President's determination that the public welfare is better served by a lesser sentence. It affirms the President's broad and largely unchecked authority in matters of executive clemency.
