Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Oliver Lee White v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 19-6181 · judgment June 18, 2019
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Oliver White is incompetent. And the Federal Government now seeks to civilly commit him as a “sexually dangerous person” under the Adam Walsh Act for what would likely be the rest of his life. To obtain a commitment order, the Government must prove, among other things, that Mr. White “engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(a)(5). Mr. White has never been convicted of any crime, so the Government would need to prove its case at a trial. It is well-settled, though, that “the criminal trial of an incompetent person violates due process” because competency is the foundation for exercise of “those rights deemed essential to a fair trial, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, the rights to summon, to confront, and to cross-examine witness es, and the right to testify on one’s own behalf or to remain silent without penalty for doing so.” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354 (1996) (citations omitted). And it is equally well-settled that “civil labels and good intentions do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards” in cases where the issue is whether a person committed a past act and the person’s liberty is at stake. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365-366 (1970). The question presented is: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the civil-commitment trial of an incompetent person whose prior conduct is disputed. (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jaclyn L. DiLauro
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Proceedings
- Mar 23 2020Motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.
- Mar 23 2020Motion for leave to file a reply brief under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.
- Mar 23 2020Petition DENIED.
- Feb 26 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
- Feb 25 2020Motion for leave to file a reply brief under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by petitioner.
- Feb 25 2020Reply of petitioner filed.
- Feb 07 2020Motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by respondent.
- Feb 07 2020Brief of respondent in opposition filed.
- Jan 09 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 7, 2020.
- Jan 08 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 8, 2020 to February 7, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 09 2019Motion (19M75) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record Granted.
- Nov 20 2019MOTION (19M75) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
- Nov 14 2019Motion (19M75) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed.
- Nov 14 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 8, 2020)
- Sep 11 2019Application (19A238) denied by The Chief Justice.
- Sep 06 2019Application (19A238) for a stay of mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to The Chief Justice.