Gilmore v. Utah
429 U.S. 1012, 97 S. Ct. 436 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third party lacks standing to bring a legal challenge as a 'next friend' on behalf of a death row inmate who state courts have found competent and who has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal.
Facts:
- Gary Mark Gilmore was convicted of murder in Utah.
- Following his conviction, he was sentenced to death.
- Gilmore repeatedly stated that he did not wish to appeal his sentence and wanted the execution to be carried out.
- Gilmore's mother, Bessie Gilmore, believed her son was not competent to make this decision and sought to pursue appeals on his behalf.
- Gilmore retained his own legal counsel to oppose his mother's efforts and to affirm his decision to waive all appeals.
- While imprisoned, Gilmore attempted to take his own life.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Mark Gilmore was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a Utah trial court on October 7, 1976.
- The Utah trial court conducted hearings and determined that Gilmore was competent to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal his sentence.
- An appeal was filed with the Utah Supreme Court by Gilmore's trial counsel, which Gilmore later stated was without his consent.
- The Utah Supreme Court held a hearing, after which it vacated a previously entered stay of execution and dismissed the appeal at Gilmore's request.
- Bessie Gilmore, as 'next friend' of her son, filed an application for a stay of execution with the U.S. Supreme Court.
- On December 3, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of execution pending a response from the State of Utah and the submission of relevant records.
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 a third party, acting as a 'next friend,' have legal standing to challenge a death sentence when the convicted defendant has been found competent and has knowingly and intelligently waived the right to all appeals?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A third party lacks standing where the defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. The Court, after examining the materials submitted by Utah, is convinced that Gary Mark Gilmore made a knowing and intelligent waiver of any and all federal rights he might have asserted after his sentence was imposed. The state courts' determinations of his competence to do so were firmly grounded. Therefore, the basis for a 'next friend' petition is absent, and the previously granted stay of execution is terminated.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
No. A third party lacks standing because the defendant is able to act in his own behalf, meaning there is no 'case or controversy' for the Court to adjudicate. Bessie Gilmore's standing as a 'next friend' is eliminated because Gary Mark Gilmore has appeared in his own behalf through retained counsel. 'Next friend' standing only applies when a person is unable to seek relief themselves. Since Gilmore is competent and has waived his rights, his mother has no standing, and this Court lacks Article III jurisdiction to hear the application.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. A third party has no standing where the defendant is competent and has unimpeded access to the courts. The record demonstrates both that Gilmore was competent to waive his right to appeal and that his access to the courts is unimpeded. Consequently, a third party has no standing to litigate any claim on his behalf, and without a proper litigant, the Court is powerless to stay the execution.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. A third party should have standing because a defendant's consent cannot authorize a state to impose a punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. The constitutionality of Utah's death penalty statute under Furman v. Georgia presents serious, unresolved questions. The societal interest in preventing unconstitutional punishments overrides an individual's waiver. Given Gilmore's inability to waive this fundamental constitutional question, his mother has standing to raise it, and the Court should stay the execution until state courts resolve the statute's validity.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A third party should have standing because the Eighth Amendment expresses a fundamental societal interest against barbaric punishments that an individual cannot waive, and there is substantial doubt about the defendant's competence. Gilmore's erratic behavior, the short time for deliberation, and the lack of a true adversarial hearing on his sanity all undermine the conclusion that his waiver was competent, knowing, and intelligent. The Utah court's handling of the matter was 'appalling' and failed to adequately determine the validity of the waiver.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The Court should grant a full hearing because the questions of standing and the constitutionality of the death sentence are of manifest importance. The issues presented are not insubstantial and deserve plenary consideration rather than a summary termination of the stay. A full and expeditious hearing should be set to properly address these critical matters.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant jurisdictional hurdle for third parties seeking to challenge a death sentence against the will of a condemned prisoner. By prioritizing the defendant's autonomy and right to waive appeals, the Court limits the 'next friend' doctrine to cases of clear incompetence or lack of access to courts. This ruling effectively permits 'volunteer' executions, where a competent inmate can forgo all appeals. The dissenters argued this approach neglects a broader societal interest, rooted in the Eighth Amendment, in ensuring that no state carries out an unconstitutional punishment, regardless of the defendant's consent.
Unlock the full brief for Gilmore v. Utah