Bowden v. Francis

Background

A man convicted of murder and sentenced to death asked before trial for a psychiatrist to examine him after his lawyer filed a special plea of insanity. The trial judge found the evidence of incompetence too weak to order an examination, offered a jury determination on competence if the defense wanted one, and the defense withdrew the plea. The defendant later testified at trial and was convicted. On direct appeal the conviction was affirmed, and the defendant sought federal habeas relief arguing the trial court should have ordered a psychiatric exam and should have provided a psychiatrist to help gather evidence to reduce his sentence. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the denial of habeas relief, citing no bona fide doubt about competency and no state-court request for psychiatric help. 733 F.2d 740 (11th Cir. 1984).

Reasoning

The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider those psychiatric-exam and expert-assistance claims in light of Ake v. Oklahoma. The order does not decide the underlying merits itself; it asks the appellate court to reexamine the earlier rulings with Ake as a point of comparison. Because the Supreme Court’s action is a vacatur and remand, the high court did not resolve whether the defendant was entitled to the requested psychiatric help.

Real world impact

Lower courts must reexamine similar requests for psychiatric examinations and expert assistance in light of Ake v. Oklahoma. This could affect death-penalty defendants seeking mental-health evaluation or expert help to present mitigating evidence, but the final outcome could still change after the lower courts reconsider.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor, joined by Justices White and Rehnquist, dissented, arguing Ake does not apply here and that the Court should have denied the petition instead of vacating and remanding.