## Facts

- Louis Loftus Repouille petitioned for naturalization on September 22, 1944.
- On October 12, 1939, within five years before the petition, Repouille intentionally killed his thirteen-year-old son using chloroform.
- The child had profound congenital disabilities: blindness, muteness, severe limb deformities, total dependence for feeding and care, and involuntary bodily functions.
- Repouille supported a family that included four other children; the family depended on his work, and the caregiving burden for the disabled child was substantial.
- Repouille was indicted for first-degree manslaughter; a jury convicted him of second-degree manslaughter and recommended “utmost clemency.”
- The sentencing judge imposed a prison term but stayed execution and placed Repouille on probation; he was discharged from probation in December 1945.
- Aside from the homicide, Repouille’s conduct during the relevant period was conceded to reflect good moral character.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant can prove the statutory requirement of “good moral character” for naturalization when, within the five-year period, he committed a mercy killing and was convicted of second-degree manslaughter.
2. How “good moral character” should be assessed: by judges’ personal moral views or by prevailing moral standards in the United States.
3. Whether uncertainty about prevailing moral standards must be resolved against the applicant, who bears the burden of proof.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting naturalization and dismissed the petition.
- The court held Repouille failed to establish “good moral character” for the five years immediately preceding the petition because the homicide fell within that period.
- The court indicated the dismissal was without prejudice to a later application once a full five-year period had elapsed after the homicide.

## Legal Principles

- “Good moral character” in naturalization is measured by generally accepted moral conventions in the United States at the time, not by a court’s personal moral judgment.
- The applicant bears the burden to affirmatively prove good moral character for the full statutory look-back period.
- When the court cannot determine that the applicant’s conduct accords with prevailing moral standards, the applicant fails because the burden rests on the applicant.
- A serious criminal act within the statutory period, even if met with significant leniency in the criminal process, can prevent a finding of good moral character for that period.
- The statutory bar is temporal: disqualifying conduct may cease to matter once it falls outside the five-year window, permitting a renewed application.

## Conclusion

The court denied naturalization because Repouille’s mercy killing and manslaughter conviction occurred within the five-year statutory period, and he did not carry the burden of proving that such conduct conformed to prevailing American moral standards during that period, though he could reapply after sufficient time had passed.


Repouille v. United States, 165 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1947)