Coughlin v. Stachulak
Joseph Coughlin v. Frank Stachulak
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.
Dissent
Mr. Justice White, with whom Mr. Justice Powell joins,
dissenting.
On appeal from an order granting respondent a writ of habeas corpus, 369 F. Supp. 628 (ND Ill. 1973), the Court of Appeals held, United States ex rel. Stachulak v. Coughlin, 520 F. 2d 931 (CA7 1975), that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the reasonable-doubt standard of proof be applied in judicial proceedings under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 105-1.01 et seg. (1973), which authorizes the State to seek involuntary indeterminate commitment to a correctional institution in lieu of criminal prosecution of a person charged *948 with a criminal offense and believed to be sexually dangerous within the meaning of the Act.
The question whether due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in such proceedings has produced divergent conclusions in the Courts of Appeals. Compare Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F. 2d 1153 (CA4 1971), cert. dismissed sub nom. Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court, 407 U. S. 355 (1972) (proof by a preponderance of the evidence), with In re Ballay, 157 U. S. App. D. C. 59, 482 F. 2d 648 (1973), and United States ex rel. Stachulak v. Coughlin, supra (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). * The question is important to the administration of justice in this country, and the Court should shoulder its responsibility to resolve the conflicting judgments.
I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and afford the case plenary consideration.
Several state courts are also at odds with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See, e. g., People v. Pembrock, 62 Ill. 2d 317 , 342 N. E. 2d 28 (1976); People v. Burnick, 14 Cal. 3d 306 , 535 P. 2d 352 (1975); In re Andrews,-Mass.-, 334 N. E. 2d 15 (1975); In re Levias, 83 Wash. 2d 253 , 517 P. 2d 588 (1973).
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
424 U.S. 947 96 S.Ct. 1419 47 L.Ed.2d 354
Joseph COUGHLIN et al. v. Frank STACHULAK.
No. 75-608.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 1, 1976
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit.
The motion of the respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice POWELL joins, dissenting.
The question whether due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in such proceedings has produced divergent conclusions in the Courts of Appeals. Compare Tippett v. Maryland , 436 F.2d 1153 (CA4 1971), cert. dismissed sub nom. Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court , 407 U.S. 355 , 92 S.Ct. 2091 , 32 L.Ed.2d 791 (1972) (proof by a preponderance of the evidence), with In re Ballay , 157 U.S.App.D.C. 59 , 482 F.2d 648 (1973), and United States ex rel. Stachulak v. Coughlin , 520 F.2d 931 (CA7 1975) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). * The question is important to the administration of justice in this country, and the Court should shoulder its responsibility to resolve the conflicting judgments.
I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and afford the case plenary consideration
Mr. Justice STEVENS took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.
* Several state courts are also at odds with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See, e. g., People v. Pembrock , 62 Ill.2d 317 , 342 N.E.2d 28 (1976); People v. Burnick , 14 Cal.3d 306 , 121 Cal.Rptr. 488 , 535 P.2d 352 (1975); In re Andrews , Mass., 334 N.E.2d 15 (1975); In re Levias , 83 Wash.2d 253 , 517 P.2d 588 (1973).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.