The StandDown Texas Project

An Infographic on Scott Panetti's Case

This infographic touches on several issues in Scott Panetti's case in a visual fashion:

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Clemency Petition Filed in Scott Panetti's Case

"Clemency Petition Filed Today: Execution of Scott Panetti Would 'Cross a Moral Line'," is a news release issued by attorneys and advocates for Scott Panetti.  Here's the full text:

Today, dozens of prominent organizations and individuals from Texas and across the country called on the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Rick Perry to stop the December 3rd scheduled execution of Scott Panetti, a severely mentally ill man who has suffered from schizophrenia for more than 30 years.

Mr. Panetti, who represented himself at his capital trial wearing a cowboy costume, will be executed unless a commutation is granted or a court intervenes.  Mr. Panetti has suffered from serious mental illness for over 30 years. He was hospitalized more than a dozen times for psychosis and delusions in the 14 years leading up to the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. At his 1995 trial he attempted to call over 200 witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the Pope, and Jesus Christ.

The commutation requests were submitted to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Perry as part of a clemency petition filed by Mr. Panetti’s attorneys this morning, which states: “The case of Scott Louis Panetti is a judicial disaster that has attracted national and international outrage – and for good reason.  Evidence of his incompetency runs like a fissure through every proceeding in his case – from arraignment to execution…The execution of Scott Panetti would cross a moral line.”

The clemency petition can be accessed here.

Letters urging clemency in Mr. Panetti’s case come from several of the nation’s and Texas’ leading mental health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, Mental Health America and Disability Rights Texas; experts on mental health issues in the law; a former Texas Governor, state Attorneys General, U.S. Attorneys and others with experience in the criminal justice field; 50 Evangelical faith leaders, including Rev. Sam Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, Lynn Hybels of the nationally prominent Willow Creek Church, Gabriel Salguero of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition and other faith leaders; Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation; and the American Bar Association, among others.

“As law enforcement and criminal justice professionals, we are deeply troubled that a capital sentence was the result of a trial where a man with schizophrenia represented himself, dressed in a costume,” stated the letter signed by 30 prominent individuals, including former federal and state court judges and prosecutors, Department of Justice officials, parole board members, and other notable legal practitioners from Texas and across the country. “We come together from across the partisan and ideological divide and are united in our belief that, irrespective of whether we support or oppose the death penalty, this is not an appropriate case for execution.”

The first time Mr. Panetti showed signs of being afflicted with a psychotic disorder was in 1978, over 14 years before he shaved his head and killed his in-laws, Amanda and Joseph Alvarado.  During his multiple hospitalizations, doctors diagnosed him with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

Detailed information about Mr. Panetti’s medical history can be found in a mental illness timeline starting in 1978 that shows how Mr. Panetti’s mental health degenerated over the years, including how in 1986, the Social Security Administration made a determination that Mr. Panetti was so disabled from schizophrenia that he was entitled to government benefits.

In 1986, Mr. Panetti first succumbed to the delusion that he was engaged in spiritual warfare with Satan. In an affidavit his first wife signed to have him involuntarily committed, she testified that he was obsessed with the idea that the devil was in the house. He engaged in a series of bizarre behaviors to exorcize his home, including burying his furniture in the backyard because he thought the devil was in the furniture.

“In his state of severe mental illness, Mr. Panetti should never have been permitted to represent himself at his capital trial,” states the letter from leading national and Texas mental health organizations and experts. “…[T]he fact that he did not have counsel renders his conviction and sentencing even more problematic in light of the delusional nature of his illness.”

In 2004, Texas tried to execute Mr. Panetti, but a federal judge court stayed the execution and the United States Supreme Court ultimately found the Fifth Circuit’s standard for determining competency to be executed unconstitutional in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Notwithstanding that decision, Texas continued to contest Mr. Panetti’s competence to be executed. In 2013, the Fifth Circuit again found him competent to be executed – despite the District Court’s findings that he has a severe mental illness and suffers from paranoid delusions.

On November 6, 2014, the trial court in Kerrville, Texas refused a request by Mr. Panetti’s attorneys to withdraw or modify the execution date so that they would have a meaningful opportunity to contest his competency for execution

Mr. Panetti has not had a competency hearing in nearly seven years. He has a fixed delusion that his execution is being orchestrated by Satan, working through the State of Texas, to put an end to his preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“The execution of Scott Panetti would be a cruel injustice that would serve no constructive purpose whatsoever,” states the letter signed by more than 50 notable Evangelical Christian faith leaders, including 20 from Texas. “When we inflict the harshest punishment on the severely mentally ill, whose culpability is greatly diminished by their debilitating conditions, we fail to respect their innate dignity as human beings.”

A complete listing of the clemency letters and more information about Mr. Panetti’s case, including legal documents, video footage, and more, can be accessed.

"When Texas Descends Into Hell: The Vulnerability of Scott Panetti," is by Rev. Jeff Hood, a Baptist Pastor.

On October 30, I woke up and walked into the bedroom of our three young children. Our oldest children are twin boys. Their little bodies were contorted around stuffed animals and producing loud snores. I watched them sleep for a little while. The room was still dark. I walked further in. Our youngest was curled up in a ball. I watched him sleep for a moment. Shuffling over to a rocker, I sat for a while and let my mind wonder in the twilight.

The previous day, the State of Texas surprisingly announced that it would execute Scott Panetti on December 3. I wondered what Scott looked like when he was the age of my children. I imagined a mother watching her child sleep and dreaming about all that he child might become. I can imagine that Scott's mother never thought her child would be a paranoid schizophrenic capable of killing his in-laws in front of his estranged wife and child. The more I sat and thought, the more I couldn't help but look to my own children and wonder if they would ever commit such a crime. Who can say? I can only know what I would do if they did. I would love them.

We descend into hell when we leave love behind. The State of Texas is quickly descending into the hell of a loveless decision.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Questions Still Swirling About Scott Panetti's Case

That's the title of an editorial in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Putting aside for a moment the argument over whether Texas ought to be executing people who have mental illness — and the state should not be doing that — how can Texas officials be so disorganized that they fail to notify a condemned man's lawyers?

"This raises troubling moral questions about why the State of Texas is rushing to execute this mentally ill man," Kase said.

Yes, it does. Panetti's crime was heinous, and for that he must be accountable. But there are serious questions around this case that haven't been adequately answered. Texas authorities need to answer them before it's too late for Panetti.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

More News Coverage of Scott Panetti's Execution Date

The Texas Tribune posts, "Lawyers Seek New Exam for Death Row Client," by Terri Langford.

A schizophrenic Texas death row inmate set for execution in December hasn't been evaluated in nearly seven years, and his mental state may not allow him to be legally put to death, his attorneys argued in an emergency court motion filed Monday.

Scott Louis Panetti, 56, was sentenced to death for the 1992 shooting deaths of his in-laws, Joe Gaitan Alvarado Jr. and Amanda Carrion Alvarado of Kerr County. At the time, Panetti was a diagnosed schizophrenic and collected federal disability checks because he could not work. 

"The currently scheduled execution date must be withdrawn," lawyers Gregory W. Wiercioch of the University of Wisconsin Law School and Kathryn M. Kase of the Texas Defender Service in Houston told the Kerr County court where Panetti was convicted.

"Lawyers for death-row inmate say they learned of execution date in news article," is by Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal.

Lawyers for a death-row inmate who represented himself at trial dressed in a purple cowboy suit say they learned of his execution date in a newspaper article.

An emergency motion for a hearing filed on behalf of Texas inmate Scott Panetti says his lawyers learned of the Dec. 3 execution date from an Oct. 30 newspaper article that was published two weeks after the date was set. The motion says Panetti has a compelling constitutional claim that he is not competent to be executed.

Defense lawyer Kathryn Kase tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that prosecutors never contacted her about the date. “We have telephones and working emails,” she said. “They know how to get ahold of us.”

"'Delusional' Killer Scott Panetti Asks Texas to Delay Execution," is by Tracy Connor of NBC News.

Lawyers for a Texas killer went to court Monday to try to get his execution day changed, complaining he hasn't had a competency hearing in seven years even though he's so delusional he thinks Satan is orchestrating his death. Scott Panetti's attorneys also contend the state set a Dec. 3 date for his lethal injection in secret and didn't tell them for two weeks. The Texas attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.

Scott Panetti, 56, fatally shot his in-laws in front of his estranged wife and their kids in 1992. He represented himself at trial, where he wore a cowboy outfit and tried to subpoena President Kennedy, Jesus Christ and Anne Bancroft. His lawyers say he doesn't even understand why he's being executed and thinks the devil is punishing him for preaching, but the state contends he has enough of a grasp on the situation to be put to death.

"Lawyer for Wisconsin native learned of execution order in news article," is by Meg Kissinger of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Hayward native Scott Panetti learned the date of his impending execution two weeks after the order had been signed when one of his lawyers read about it in a newspaper, a motion filed Monday in Texas alleges.

"It was appalling to pick up the newspaper and learn this," said Kathryn Kase, who has represented Panetti for 10 years.

The Thursday story in the Houston Chronicle said an execution date had been set for Dec. 3. The order — submitted by District Attorney E. Bruce Kerr — was signed by the judge on Oct. 16.

Kase said no one from Kerr's office or the court contacted her office.

"We have telephones and working emails," she said. "They know how to get ahold of us."

Kerr was not available for comment Monday. Lucy Wilke, Kerr's assistant, said he had instructed her not to comment.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Emergency Motion for Hearing Filed in Scott Panetti Case

The following statement has been issued by Scott Panetti's attorneys:

Today, an Emergency Motion for Hearing was filed in state court by attorneys for Scott Panetti, a severely mentally ill man scheduled for execution in Texas on December 3, 2014, asking the State withdraw or modify the execution date so that Mr. Panetti is given a meaningful opportunity to contest his competency for execution. Mr. Panetti has not had a competency hearing in nearly seven years.Astonishingly, it is noted in the Motion that Mr. Panetti's attorneys learned of the execution date from the newspaper on October 30th -- two weeks after the date was set, apparently in secret, with no notice whatsoever to the lawyers who have represented Mr. Panetti for nearly a decade.

"The State has an unequivocal, constitutional duty in every case to pursue justice -- not a conviction, not an execution, not a win at all costs.  By not informing attorneys that an execution date had been set, the State has fallen woefully short of that duty in Scott Panetti's case,” said Greg Wiercioch, counsel of record for Mr. Panetti.  “The State's conduct would be disturbing if this were a routine case.  But it is unconscionable in a death penalty case where the District Attorney himself did not believe Scott Panetti was competent to represent himself at trial,” said Mr. Wiercioch.

The Motion, filed in trial court in Kerrville, Texas, can be accessed at the link.

The Motion states, “[t]here can be no serious dispute that, because of Mr. Panetti’s long-standing and incurable psychotic disorder, he meets the threshold showing that entitles him to the appointment of two experts and an evidentiary hearing under Article 46.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,’ and that “[t]he U. S. Supreme Court held – in Mr. Panetti’s own case – that the procedure for determining a prisoner’s competency for execution must comport with due process under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” (page 2)

“Mr. Panetti’s severe mental illness has infected every stage of his capital case. His execution now would cross a moral line and serve no penological purpose. It is reasonable and necessary for a competency hearing to take place before the State wrongly executes someone who is clearly incompetent for execution,” said Kathryn Kase, co-counsel for Mr. Panetti.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Additional News Coverage of Scott Panetti's Execution Date

The Guardian reports, "Texas sets execution date for mentally ill killer Scott Panetti," by Tom Dart.

Texas is preparing to execute a mentally ill man who dressed as a cowboy at his trial and attempted to subpoena Jesus Christ, John F Kennedy and the Pope.

On Wednesday, a day after Miguel Paredes became the 10th – and at the time it was thought final – Texas prisoner to be put to death this year, the state gave Scott Panetti an execution date of 3 December. The 56-year-old shot his parents-in-law to death in 1992 in front of his estranged wife and their three-year-old daughter.

Long and complex legal battles have taken place since he was convicted in 1995 as a succession of courts have ruled Panetti is competent to be executed even though there is no question that he is mentally ill and suffers from paranoid delusions.

A schizophrenic man who had been hospitalised 14 times before the murders of Joe and Amanda Alvarado in the Texas Hill Country, he insisted he represent himself at trial, where his only defence was insanity. He said that during the crime he was under the control of a hallucination he called “Sarge”. He wore a purple cowboy suit, rambled incoherently, fell asleep and made a threatening gesture at the jury. Court documents show his standby attorney described Panetti as “bizarre”, “scary” and “trance-like” and that the trial was a “judicial farce”.

"Lethal injection date set for Scott Panetti," is by Meg Kissinger of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, who has covered the case for years.

Scott Panetti, a Hayward native whose death row case drew national attention around the issue of protecting the rights of mentally ill defendants, has been scheduled to die by lethal injection Dec. 3 in Texas.

Panetti, 56, has won stays of execution before. He was a day from being executed in 2004 when that order was stopped. The new execution date was made public Thursday.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Panetti's death sentence for the murder of his wife's parents 15 years earlier. The court found that Panetti had insufficient understanding of why he was being put to death. Panetti said he believed he was being executed not for the killings but for preaching the Gospel to his fellow death row inmates.

The 5-4 ruling was considered a rebuke of the lower court's decision, but it stopped short of establishing a new standard for competency.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Texas District Court Sets December Execution Date for Scott Panetti

"Inmate described as delusional gets execution date," is the AP report, via the Austin American-Statesman.

A Texas death row inmate whose attorneys contend is so delusional that he can't understand why he was convicted and condemned has been scheduled for execution.

Scott Panetti, 56, was set for lethal injection in Huntsville on Dec. 3, according to a Gillespie County judge's order received this week by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which carries out executions.

Panetti, a native of Hayward, Wisconsin, has a history of mental problems and his case has been to the U.S. Supreme Court at least three times. The most recent was early this month when the justices refused to review his latest appeal. State attorneys have argued he exaggerates some of his symptoms to avoid execution.

"Texas adds 11th killer to 2014 execution list," is by Allan Turner of the Houston Chronicle.

Executions may be scheduled at any time during the year, provided a 30-day period passes between the date the execution was ordered and the date it is carried out. Executions typically are not scheduled around Christmas.

Greg Wiercioch, an attorney for Scott Panetti, has issued the following statement:

"Scott Panetti is not competent for execution and therefore his execution would serve no retributive purpose.  It is unfortunate that an execution date has been set.

“For more than three decades, Mr. Panetti has suffered from severe mental illness. He was allowed to represent himself at his capital trial, wearing a make-believe cowboy outfit and attempting to subpoena Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy. He has a fixed delusion that Satan, working through the State of Texas, is seeking to execute him for preaching the Gospel. His execution would be a miserable spectacle."

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

Related coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Scott Panetti's Condition

"High Court Must Avoid a 'Miserable Spectacle'," is the OpEd by Ron Honberg for the National Law Journal.  He's with the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Scott Panetti has been diagnosed with severe mental illness for more than 30 years. His mental illness manifested itself at least a decade before the murder of his wife's parents, a crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas. It is uncontested that Panetti's delusions center on his belief that his execution is being orchestrated by Satan, working through Texas officials, to stop him from saving the souls of the condemned.

Seven years ago, in Panetti v. Quarter­man, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's standard for assessing competency for execution was unconstitutional. When directed to reconsider Panetti's case, the Fifth Circuit again held that he was competent for execution — despite the district court's findings that he has severe mental illness and suffers from paranoid delusions about the reasons for his execution. Panetti's petition for a writ of certiorari is now pending at the Supreme Court.

The principle that it is unconstitutional to execute individuals who are insane is ingrained in American law. In Ford v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court in 1986 observed: "Whether its aim be to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding, or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction [against executing the insane] finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment."

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  Related coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

George Parnham on the Case of Scott Panetti

"Scott Panetti is not competent for execution," is the title of an OpEd written by Houston attorney George Parnham in today's Austin American-Statesman.  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

Do you remember Scott Panetti? He is pretty unforgettable. Panetti is the man with paranoid schizophrenia who was allowed to represent himself, while on trial for his life, wearing a make-believe Western cowboy outfit. He insisted on defending himself and attempted to summon dozens of witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the pope and even Jesus Christ.

Panetti’s delusional courtroom performance was not simply painful to watch. It was a mockery of civilized society.

If Texas executes Panetti, it would be another travesty. He would go to his death convinced that he is being executed for preaching the gospel, not for the 1992 murder of his in-laws in Kerr County. The U.S. Supreme Court should intervene and prevent this gross injustice. The court needs to announce a clear standard for determining competency for execution that will provide guidance for the lower courts.

For more than 30 years, Panetti has suffered from severe mental illness. In the decade leading up to the crime, he was hospitalized 14 times for schizophrenia, manic depression (bipolar disorder), auditory hallucinations and delusions of persecution and grandiosity. At one point, he buried his furniture in his backyard because he believed the devil was in his furniture. By all accounts, his mental condition has gotten worse in prison.

Earlier coverage begins at the link.  Related coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

ABA Files Amicus in John Ferguson Case

The American Bar Association has issued the news release, "ABA asks Supreme Court to clarify competency standard in case of Florida death row inmate."  Here's the full text:

In a case involving a death row prisoner in Florida who has long suffered from severe mental illness, the American Bar Association is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the Eighth Amendment standard to be applied when determining competency to be executed.

The ABA’s amicus brief in Ferguson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, filed in support of the prisoner’s request that the court grant certiorari in his case, observes that several courts, including the Florida Supreme Court in this case, have variously misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Panetti v. Quarterman. In that 2007 decision, the court held that for a prisoner to be competent for execution, he must have a rational understanding of the meaning and purpose of his execution, the ABA notes.

“Holding a person accountable is intended to be an affirmation of personal responsibility. Executing someone who lacks a meaningful understanding of the nature of this awesome punishment and its retributive purpose offends the concept of personal responsibility rather than affirming it,” the brief states, quoting from the amicus brief the ABA previously filed in Panetti.

Thus, the ABA argued in its Panetti brief, when “a death row inmate attributes his pending execution to reasons that only someone suffering from a significant mental disability could espouse — such as a delusion that he is to be executed because of his faith in God — he cannot be said to have the capacity to accept responsibility for his crimes.”

State and federal courts have been unable to apply Panetti in a uniform manner, the ABA’s Ferguson brief argues, stating, “The Court should grant the petition and now clarify the standard courts should apply in determining whether a capital prisoner is competent to be executed.”

The ABA’s Ferguson amicus brief is available online here.

"Schizophrenic US murder convict appeals execution," is the AFP post, via Business Recorder.

The lawyer of a mentally ill man who killed eight people and proclaimed himself "the prince of God" has petitioned the US Supreme Court for a halt to his execution.

John Ferguson, 65, who has a documented history of paranoid schizophrenia, is scheduled to be executed on a Monday August 5 execution at Florida State Prison in Raiford.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Texas Execution Stay a Wise Move

That's the title of an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle on the Marcus Druery case.  Here's the beginning:

Last Friday, capping a flurry of activity, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution to convicted murderer Marcus Druery, who had been scheduled to be put to death tomorrow for a Brazos County murder and robbery in 2002.

At issue was Druery's mental competency to understand the reason for his execution. Both state and private mental health professionals had diagnosed Druery as severely psychotic and therefore incompetent to be executed. But last Tuesday, Brazos County District Judge J. D. Langley denied a motion to hold a full hearing on Druery's competency.

On Wednesday, Kate Black, Druery's attorney, stating that her client's execution "would violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel or unusual punishment," appealed that denial to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that her client "suffers from a psychotic disorder that renders him incompetent to be executed." Two days later, the court stayed the execution, writing that it had "determined that further review is necessary."

We applaud the court's decision, as far as it goes. We fervently hope that their review will persuade the justices to remand the case back to the Brazos County court for a competency hearing. Execution is irrevocable, and should never be invoked as long as a shred of doubt exists as to its constitutionality in any given case.

Prosecutors are not contesting the diagnosis of schizophrenia, nor claiming that Druery is malingering. They argue that despite his mental illness, he is competent for execution. But no court has ever ruled on Druery's competency. His attorneys are simply asking that their client not be put to death until they have had a chance to demonstrate, in a full and fair hearing, that he is not competent to be executed.

Salon posts, "Marcus Druery: Another questionable Texas execution."  It's by Rania Khalek.

Black says Druery’s awareness of his upcoming death sentence is not the same as having a “rational understanding” of why the state wants to execute him. As evidence, she points to the Supreme Court decision in Panetti v. Quarterman, a case brought forward by another psychotic inmate who was nearly executed by the state of Texas.

Panetti had schizoaffective disorder, causing delusions that led him to believe the state wanted to kill him to stop him from preaching. Though Panetti recognized the factual rationale behind his death sentence — that he was found guilty of murdering his ex-wife’s parents — the Supreme Court held that “[a] prisoner’s awareness of the State’s rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it.”

The court reasoned that executing a prisoner who “has no comprehension of why he has been singled out and stripped of his fundamental right to life” undermines the concept of retributive justice. “There’s no retribution for someone being executed when they think it’s for something that has nothing to do with the actual crime,” explained Black.

Druery’s failure to understand his legal circumstances was verified by Diane Mosnik, a neuropsychologist specializing in schizophrenia who was hired by the defense with court funding to conduct a comprehensive psychological assessment of Druery in May. “Because of his inflexible, psychotic and delusional interpretation of his circumstances, Mr. Druery does not have the capacity to rationally understand the connection between his crime and his punishment,” concluded Mosnik. “Although [Mr. Druery] has a factual awareness that an execution date has been scheduled for the crime for which he was tried, he does not believe that he will be executed because of his illogical, fixed, and firmly held delusional belief system.”

Black and her co-counsel, Gregory W. Wiercioch, one of the lawyers who argued the Panetti case to the Supreme Court, immediately appealed Langley’s ruling to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, requesting that it be overturned and Judge Langley be required to hold a competency hearing. Late Friday, the CCA granted a temporary stay pending further review of the evidence.

Earlier coverage of Marcus Druery's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  In April, I added the competency category index.  Earlier posts dealing with compentency are available under the Scott Panetti index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.

Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Will Texas Execute a Psychotic Man?

That's the title of Andrew Cohen's latest Atlantic post.  It' subtitled, "One prison doctor after another has diagnosed Marcus Druery as severely mentally ill. Does the Constitution permit the death penalty anyway?"  Here's the beginning:

Some things are relatively simple about the case of Marcus Druery, a convicted murderer whom Texas officials plan to execute Wednesday evening at the state's death chamber in Huntsville. The details of the Halloween 2002 crime for which Druery was convicted are horrible, for example, and there is no pending legal claim that Druery is innocent or was wrongly convicted. This time, at least, no one seems to doubt that the police, the prosecutors, the witnesses, and the jurors all got the right man.

But there is one thing about the Druery case that is very complicated, indeed. No one seems to dispute that Druery now suffers from delusions and a psychotic disorder that doctors have consistently labeled as a form of schizophrenia. Nevertheless, despite these diagnoses, and despite United States Supreme Court precedent that precludes the execution of prisoners "who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it," Texas still intends to execute Druery.

If the courts permit, that is. Late Friday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the Druery execution "pending further order." The unpublished ruling means that state appellate judges want to look more closely at defense claims that Druery has shown enough evidence of incompetency to preclude his execution. The central legal question here is: Can a state execute an "Undifferentiated Type" schizophrenic? Put another way, how mentally ill does someone need to be to be too mentally ill to be executed?

If the substance of the Druery appeal has to do with a single man's mental health, the process that led us here is illustrative of the deeply flawed nature of Texas' capital punishment system. We see in this case a judge more angry about delays than he is committed to accuracy. We see prosecutors with risible disdain toward defense counsel. And we see it all in a case in which the condemned man has been judged to be seriously mentally ill over and over again by the state's own doctors.

Earlier coverage of Marcus Druery's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  In April, I added the competency category index.  Earlier posts dealing with compentency are available under the Scott Panetti index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.

Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

There are several notable posts on the question of competency to be excuted:

• The Criminally Mentally Ill
• Scholarship - Mental Illness & Competency to Be Executed

Marcus Druery

"Lawyers Argue Inmate Incompetent for Aug. 1 Execution," is Brandi Grissom's post at Texas Tribune, today.  Here's the beginning:

Marcus Druery says that his cell on death row at Livingston's Polunsky Unit is wired. The wires, he believes, carry voices into his cell and transport his thoughts to other people. Prison staff members, he claims, have contaminated his food with feces, urine and insects.

Druery, 32, is scheduled to be executed Aug. 1 for the 2002 fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man in Brazos County. On Tuesday, his lawyers will ask a judge to appoint experts to examine the convicted murderer, who they argue is ineligible for execution because of his severe mental illness.

“He started to experience voices and hearing echoes in his cell and has deteriorated pretty quickly since arriving on death row,” said Kate Black, who represents Druery and is a staff attorney at the Texas Defender Service.

A spokeswoman for the Brazos County district attorney’s office declined to comment on the ongoing case, but said that the state would file a response to Druery’s motion before the hearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 in another Texas death penalty case, Panetti v. Quarterman, that it isn’t enough for prisoners to simply understand the fact that they will be executed and are being punished for a crime. The court ruled that inmates must have enough mental capacity to have “a rational understanding of it.”

And:

At Tuesday's hearing, Druery’s lawyers will ask the judge to appoint two independent experts to evaluate his mental competency. In documents requesting the hearing, they wrote that Druery’s “psychotic disorder prevents a rational understanding of the connection between his crime and his punishment.”

Earlier coverage of Marcus Druery's case begins at the link

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Related posts are in the competency and mental illness indexes.

Gerald Eldridge

"Court to rule if condemned Houston killer is sane," is the title of Allan Turner's report in today's Houston Chronicle.

Condemned double-killer Gerald Eldridge has told authorities he has seen spaceships, wrangled with a winged monster that keeps people from going to heaven and, during jailhouse visits, genially chatted with his old girlfriend, the same one whose 1993 murder sent him to death row.

Houston lawyer Lee Wilson says his client's behavior indicates he is incompetent to be executed. Lawyers for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott counter that Eldridge is only faking to escape death.

On Monday, U.S. Judge Lee Rosenthal began hearing evidence regarding the killer's psychological soundness. In November 2009, she stayed Eldridge's execution two hours before lethal drugs were to have been administered, so the Houston laborer could receive additional psychological testing.

Opening testimony Monday, psychiatrist Dr. Pradan Nathan told the judge he had treated Eldridge for about a year on death row beginning in June 2010. Eldridge, he said, suffered from "looseness of association," a psychological malady he said was hard to fake. Nathan told the judge he had on several occasions modified dosage of powerful anti-psychosis drugs in an effort to curb his symptoms.

Nathan also testified that the inmate expressed fear that prison workers were poisoning his food. The fact that Eldridge had lost 50 pounds lent credence to the premise that the killer truly believed he was in peril, he said.

And:

Roe Wilson, chief of the Harris County District Attorney's post-conviction writ division, said "unusual beliefs" do not necessarily mean a killer is incompetent to be executed. Under state law, it must be determined the inmate is unaware he is to be put to death and why.

If found incompetent, he will be returned to death row. At the instigation of the District Attorney's Office, he subsequently may be re-evaluated and, if found competent, executed.

Earlier coverage of Gerald Elridge's case begins at the link.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.

I expect that we will be hearing more on this subject in the near future.  Steven Staley is scheduled to be executed by Texas, May 16.  Staley has a long history of severe mental illness and has been the subject of a court order to force medication in order to make him competent to be executed.

Related posts are in the mental illness and Scott Panetti indexes. Panetti's case involves the question of competency to be executed.  With this post I'm adding competency to the category index.

Stay Issued in Controversial Oklahoma Case - Updated

"Stay issued for Okla. death row inmate set for execution today," is the breaking news from the McAlester News-Capital.  It's by Rachel Petersen.

A stay was issued for an Oklahoma State Penitentiary death row inmate who was scheduled to be executed today at 6 p.m. in the prison’s death chamber.

“A federal judge stayed Garry Allen’s execution Wednesday afternoon,” said OSP Warden’s Assistant Terry Crenshaw. U.S. District Judge David L. Russell issued the stay, ruling that Allen’s claims that he is insane and ineligible for the death penalty should be reviewed, the Associated Press reported. Allen has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and his attorneys argue his mental state deteriorated on death row.

“Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has filed a notice of appeal to the stay of execution,” Crenshaw said. If the appeal to the stay of execution is granted by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, officials at OSP have “measures in place to carry out the execution according to court orders.”

Garry Thomas Allen, 56, was previously set for execution on Feb. 16, but Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin granted a 30-day stay of execution for the condemned man. She said the stay was issued so her legal team could have more time to consider a 2005 recommendation by the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board to commute his sentence to life.

“Having thoroughly reviewed the arguments and evidence presented in this case, I have determined that clemency should be denied in this case, and that the sentence of death be carried out,” Fallin wrote in an executive order filed March 13.

And:

The U.S. Supreme Court and state law prohibit execution of inmates who are insane or mentally incompetent.

UPDATE - On Friday the Suprme Court refused to lift the district court stay.  The AP post is, "US Supreme Court declines to lift stay of execution for Oklahoma death-row inmate," via the Washington Post.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a stay of execution for a convicted Oklahoma killer who says he is insane and ineligible for the death penalty.

A federal court ordered the stay Wednesday and gave Garry Allen’s attorneys 15 days to appeal. An appeals court approved that ruling Thursday. Oklahoma’s attorney general referred the case to the nation’s highest court, which upheld the stay Friday.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright. more via Oyez.

In its next term, the Court will hear two cases dealing with competency to be executed.  Earlier coverage of these Arizona and Ohio cases begins at the link. 

Earlier coverage of the Allen case in Oklahoma begins at the link.

Related posts are in the mental illness and Scott Panetti indexes. Panetti's case involves the question of competency to be executed.

Supreme Court to Hear Arizona, Ohio Cases on Competency Issues

"Competency and death-row challenges," is Lyle Denniston's SCOTUSblog report.  Here's an excerpt from the top of his thorough coverage of the cases and issues:

The Supreme Court a quarter century ago ruled that it would be unconstitutional to execute an insane individual, and it decided in 2002 to extend that ban to the mentally retarded.  Earlier, in 1966, it had ruled that federal courts should not allow a death-row inmate to give up any legal challenges while he was mentally ill.  But the Court has never decided whether an individual has any right, under the Constitution or any federal law, to actually be competent in order to take part in a federal habeas review of his case or to have the case put off indefinitely.   On Monday, it agreed to rule on those issues, accepting new cases from Arizona and Ohio.

And:

The Justices’ agreement to take on two new death-row cases brings the Court back to an exploration of the rights of individuals who have been sentenced to death in murder cases and then are found to be mentally incompetent.  If they are actually insane, they cannot be executed, under the Court’s 1986 decision in Ford v. Wainwright.  The mentally retarded were also shielded from execution by the 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia.  Those rulings meant flat bans on the death penalty.  But the Court has not sorted out what other legal rights the mentally ill on death row have when, having failed in challenges in state court, they turn to federal courts to press their legal claims.

Officials in 17 states joined in urging the Court to spell out what a federal court is to do in a habeas case when a death-row inmate is found to be incapable — because of a mental defect — of helping out his lawyers in pursuing a habeas challenge.  State officials object to having such a case put on hold indefinitely, because it leaves the state uncertain about whether it can carry out death sentences.  Such cases, they argue, should proceed to decisions on whether the inmate has any valid complaint about his state trial, and do so whether the inmate takes part or not.

The SCOTUSblog case file for Ryan v. Gonzales contains more case information.

"Supreme Court will considered delays in death row cases over claims of mental health problems," is the AP filing via the Washington Post.

In each case, a death row inmate won an indefinite delay from federal judges based on disputed claims of mental incompetence to understand the proceedings against him and aid in his own defense.

Sean Carter was sentenced to death for raping and killing his adoptive grandmother in 1997. Ernest Valencia Gonzales received a death sentence for a murder in Arizona in 1990.

Reuters posts, "Supreme court to hear death row mental competency cases," by James Vicini.  It's via the Chicago Tribune.

The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a federal law on the appointment of attorneys requires that death row inmates have their legal proceedings put on hold if they are mentally incompetent to assist their lawyers.

The justices agreed to hear a pair of cases from Arizona and Ohio and decide the reach of a law that provides that a poor death row inmate pursuing a federal appeal after conviction be entitled to the appointment of attorneys.

The Obama administration took the position in one of the cases that federal courts have the inherent authority to put such proceedings on hold if the inmate was mentally incompetent.

Administration lawyers said the law at issue neither categorically requires nor rules out a stay of such proceedings. It said the law provided for the appointment of an attorney but does not guarantee a right of mental competence to assist the counsel in post-conviction appeals.

"Supreme Court to Decide on Competency Delays in Death-Row Habeas Cases," by Debra Cassens Weiss for ABA Journal.

The second case, Tibbals v. Carter, involves Ohio death-row inmate Sean Carter, who was sentenced to death for raping and killing his adoptive grandmother in 1997, AP says. According to an opinion (PDF) by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, experts agreed that Carter suffered from schizophrenia, personality disorder and hallucinations. The court based its decision partly on a different federal law allowing judges to order competency hearings for defendants before a trial, SCOTUSblog reports.

The Volokh Conspiracy noted “a forceful dissent” by Judge John Rogers in the 2011 ruling. “Today the court allows habeas petitioners to prevent states from enforcing their judgments, potentially forever, on the grounds of a nonexistent right to competency in habeas proceedings,” he wrote.

Courthouse News Service posts, "High Court to Consider Staying Death Row Cases," by Barbara Leonard.

"Supreme Court to hear case of Warren killer," is coverage from Ohio's Warren Tribune Chronicle.  It's written by Christopher Bobby.

The cases will be considered in the Court's next term, which will begin in October.

Related posts are in the mental illness and Scott Panetti indexes. Panetti's case involves the question of competency to be executed.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright. more via Oyez. 

Ohio Appears Set to Execute

"Ohio set to execute man who killed 3 sleeping sons," is the automatically updating AP post written by Kantele Franko.

Ohio was poised Tuesday to end a nearly six-month break in its use of capital punishment by executing a man who fatally shot his three sons while they slept in 1982, shortly after his wife filed for divorce.

State and federal courts have rejected attorneys' arguments that 66-year-old Reginald Brooks of East Cleveland is not mentally competent and that the government withheld relevant evidence that could have affected Brooks' case.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied Brooks' request to halt the execution, as did the Ohio Supreme Court Monday. After a federal appeals court in Cincinnati rejected another appeal late Tuesday morning, Brooks' attorneys decided not to appeal further, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

The prison system pushed Brooks' execution until 1:30 p.m., just over three hours later than originally scheduled. LoParo said officials needed more time as they prepared.

Prison officials had temporarily postponed the execution until the final appeals were resolved.

And:

The defense contends Brooks is a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered from mental illness long before he shot his 11-, 15- and 17-year-old sons in the head as they slept at their East Cleveland home on a Saturday morning. The defense says Brooks believed his co-workers and wife were poisoning him and that he maintains his innocence, offering conspiracy theories about the killings that involve police, his relatives and a look-alike.

Prosecutors acknowledge Brooks is mentally ill but dispute the notions that it caused the murders or makes him incompetent.

Brooks' execution would be the 40th in the nation this year; Ohio's fifth execution of 2011.  It would be the nation's 1,274th post-Furman executions since 1977; Ohio's 46th 2 post-Furman executions since 1999.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright.  Competency to be executed is also an issue in the case of Scott Panetti.  StandDown's mental illness index is here.

Earlier coverage from Ohio begins at the link.

The State of Florida is also poised to carry out an execution, today. AP and CBS News post, "Florida set to execute convicted killer Oba Chandler."  Texas is scheduled to carry out its 13th execution of the year, tomorrow.

Execution Date for Mentally Ill Inmate to Be Withdrawn

"Judge Salvant in Fort Worth postpones hearing on execution of mentally ill Death Row inmate Staley," is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram report by Martha Deller.

For the third time in five years, a mentally ill Death Row inmate has gotten a reprieve while attorneys continue a rare legal battle over whether he can be forcibly medicated to make him sane enough to be executed.

Steven Kenneth Staley, 48, was scheduled to be executed Dec. 1 for the 1989 robbery-slaying of restaurant manager Robert Read, who was fatally shot after offering himself as a hostage to spare the lives of his staff and customers at a Steak & Ale in west Fort Worth.

But State District Judge Wayne Salvant, who set Staley's execution date in September, postponed a hearing this week to decide whether Staley is mentally competent to be put to death.

Salvant said he expects to sign a separate order to stay Staley's execution until he determines his competency.

Staley, who was diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic after he was sent to Death Row in 1991, had his 2005 and 2006 executions stayed after experts determined that he didn't understand why he was being put to death.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited the execution of people with mental retardation, it has not ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who had a serious mental illness at the time of the crime.

And:

The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot execute someone who is not able to understand why they are being executed. But the high court and other courts have not prohibited states from forcibly medicating inmates to restore their competency before they are put to death.

In 2006, Salvant ordered prison officials to give Staley anti-psychotic drugs that Staley had refused because he believed they would poison him. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined to reverse the order.

Salvant said he believes that Staley has been medicated since he ordered it in 2006.

"The case law said we can do that," Salvant said.

Strickland has repeatedly said forcing inmates to take medication against their will is cruel and unusual punishment and should be stopped immediately.

Prosecutor Chuck Mallin, chief of the district attorney's appellate division, disagrees. He said the medication is necessary to control Staley's psychosis and carry out the 1991 sentence.

In September, after another round of defense appeals was denied, Salvant set the Dec. 1 execution date. Staley was then returned to the Tarrant County Jail, where he was to have had a competency hearing Monday.

On Tuesday, Salvant granted Strickland's request to delay the hearing so he could find a mental health expert to counter a state expert who has already examined Staley. Strickland said he expects a new round of appeals to delay Staley's execution for four to six years.

But Staley will have to get a new attorney to handle future appeals. Strickland, who has represented Staley since 1999, is returning to the district attorney's office in January as deputy chief district attorney. He has been a criminal defense attorney for 30 years.

Earlier coverage of the Staley case begins with this post; related posts are in the mental illness index.  There are several notable posts on the question of competency to be excuted:

• The Criminally Mentally Ill
• Scholarship -Mental Illness & Competency to Be Executed

The question of competency to be executed was addressed in a 1989 Supreme Court case which set the standard for evaluating competency to be executed, Ford v. Wainwright.  The Supreme Court revisited the subject in 2007 in the Texas case of Scott Panetti; more on Panetti v. Quarterman, via Oyez.

Staley's was the final scheduled execution in 2010, according to TDCJ.  One execution date has already been ordered for 2011.  It is unlikely, though still possible, that additional execution dates could be set for 2010.

Texas has carried out 17 executions in 2010, the fewest since 2001, when there were also 17 excutions.  Texas has carried out 464 executions since 1982, by far the most of any state in America, accounting for more than 37% of the nation's post-Furman executions.

Texas Execution

Texas is scheduled to carry out its 14th execution of the year, tonight in Huntsville.  It would be the state's 461st execution since 1982.  Texas has far and away the most active death chamber in America, accounting for more than 37% of the nation's post-Furman executions. 

The Courier of Montgomery County has, "Judge denies execution stay for Jonathon Green."  It's written by Nancy Flake.

A Montgomery man scheduled to die Wednesday for the June 21, 2000, murder of a 12-year-old Dobbin girl is mentally competent for execution, a Montgomery County judge ruled Monday.

Unless the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or a federal court rules for a stay of execution, Jonathan Marcus Green, 42, will be put to death by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Wednesday for the kidnapping, rape and strangulation murder of Christina LeAnn Neal.

And:

Green had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, Rytting argued, and could make no rational connection about why he will be executed.

“The crux is whether he had a rational understanding of what he did,” Rytting said. “Mr. Green knows what the death penalty is. But he insists he is innocent based on the belief that he was in Conroe, Texas, at the time of the murder ... and based on the belief that there is a system of beings within him, some of whom want him dead.

“That is his concept of reality.”

The Supreme Court articulated the standard for competency to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright.  The Court revisited the issue in 2007 in the case of Scott Panetti, a severely mentally ill Texas death row inmate.

To date, there have been 29 executions in the nation in 2010, and 1,217 executions since 1977.

Houston's KPFT-FM will host Execution Watch on the web and it's HD radio broadcast signal beginning at 6:00 p.m. (CDT), tonight.

According to TDCJ, four more executions are scheduled in Texas during 2010, including one on Thursday evening.  More execution dates will likely be set by state district courts this year. 

Karl Keys at Capital Defense Weekly notes execution dates in Texas and other states.

New Hampshire Senate Rejects Expansion Legislation

"Death penalty bill dropped by Senate," is the title of Kevin Landrigan's report in today's Nashua Telegraph.

The State Senate shipped off to political oblivion Wednesday the proposed expansion of the death penalty to cover home invasions in memory of Kimberly Cates who was slain in Mont Vernon.

Opponents said it would be premature to adjust the capital murder law in any way while a high-powered commission completes a comprehensive, cost versus benefit analysis of the death penalty versus life without the possibility of parole.

“It is fully appropriate to wait for the commission to complete their work and address this issue as part of their deliberations,” said State Sen. Beth Reynolds, D-Plymouth.

The heinous killing of Cates and attempted killing of her daughter, Jaimie, 11, has left families feeling unsafe in their homes, said Sen. Sheila Roberge, R-Bedford, who sponsored the bill (SB 472).

“Do any of us feel safe when this can happen? I don’t think so,” said Roberge, whose district includes Mont Vernon.

The Cates murder shattered the notion that the home invasion murder of a Hanover couple a decade ago was an isolated incident and could never happen again in what’s recognized as one of the safest states in the country, she continued.

And:

The Senate voted along party lines to send the bill to interim study that effectively means it will have to start over as a new bill in 2011.

All 14 Senate Democrats favored the study move while all 10 Senate Republicans opposed it.

The commission won’t complete its work until Dec. 1, a month after voters elect a new Legislature.

In the Union Leader, Tom Fahey writes, "Senate kills bill to extend death penalty to home invasion cases."

The Senate voted 14-10 today to send back for more detailed study a bill to apply the death penalty in home invasion murder cases.

The bill was a response to the October murder of Kimberly Cates and the machete attack on her 11-year-old daughter in their Mont Vernon home.

Democrats turned back Republican efforts to pass the bill, SB 472, on a straight party-line vote to study it through the summer. The move effectively kills the bill for this legislative session.

The change in law would not affect the sentencing of the two teens who face first-degree murder charges for the late-night home invasion attack on Cates. They face a mandatory life-without-parole sentence if convicted of the charge. Three alleged accomplices have already pleaded guilty to charges connected to the case.

Democrats argued that a commission is still examining all aspects of the state's death penalty laws, so changing the laws at this time would be premature.

Earlier coverage on the New Hampshire legislation is here; the state's study commission, here.

Pennsylvania Justices: OK to Execute 'Mentally Deficient' People

That's the title of an article from Law.com's Legal Intelligencer today.  The ruling in the case of Pennsylvania v. Vandivner is here.   Leo Strupczewski's news report is here.

In a decision that may prove to be a lightning rod in the debate over Pennsylvania's use of the death penalty, the state Supreme Court has ruled that any criminal defendant with mental impairments, short of being legally defined as "mentally retarded," can be executed for capital offenses.

A dissenting justice accused the majority of being "draconian" and warned the ruling might lead to putting mentally retarded people to death.

The justices in the 5-2 decision in Commonwealth v. Vandivner ruled that those seeking waiver of the death penalty must show records noting a defendant's mental illness began before his or her 18th birthday -- a decision Justice Max Baer labeled as problematic for certain defendants.

"To say this is troubling is an understatement," Baer wrote in his concurring and dissenting opinion. "Many defendants, such as appellant, were not afforded the specialized expert attention, IQ tests, or adaptive assessments memorialized in school records, required by the majority to corroborate their claim of mental retardation."

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia allowed states to define "mental retardation" and that his ruling merely followed the definition set forth by the state Supreme Court in 2005 in Commonwealth v. Miller.

The Miller ruling, he wrote, requires a defendant to prove three things -- that his or her IQ is roughly at or below 70, that he or she has limited adaptive behavior skills and that he or she has had such problems since before his or her 18th birthday.

In James W. Vandivners case, the debate centered on whether Vandivner was diagnosed as mentally retarded before his 18th birthday.

Castille wrote he was not.

He later continued: "As there is currently no prohibition on imposing the death penalty on a defendant who is mentally deficient but not mentally retarded, this claim must fail."

Much more on this topic is in StandDown's mental illness category index.

The Case of Raymond Riles

Houston's KPRC-TV reported last night on Raymond Riles, a severely mentally ill Texas death row inmate who is incompetent to be executed.  "Is 30 Years Too Long On Texas Death Row?"

His case has sparked a debate of what to do with inmates spending decades waiting for an execution. Local 2 investigative reporter Amy Davis uncovers why Riles' case could change the future of Texas' death row.

"They told me they were going to kill me unless I stopped preaching my mystic gospel," Riles told us during an interview from death row at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston. "God is the greatest and I didn't come to die on death row."

As Riles speaks, you're almost able to read his mind -- by not understanding it.

"They're trying to silence me because I know about the satanic secret societies of the TDC shadow government e-system," said Riles.

His mind appears mixed-up, full of delusions and paranoia. This is the latest chapter of Riles' story -- 33 years of crime and punishment.

Riles committed his crime back in 1974. He was convicted of killing Houston used-car salesman John Henry during a 1974 robbery. A Harris County jury sentenced Riles to death.

But 33 years later, Riles still waits on death row with no execution date and no plans for one.

"It's because he's incompetent to be executed," explained Roe Wilson, an assistant district attorney for Harris County.

Wilson handles death row appeals and says Riles case is that simple. Mental health experts have ruled Riles doesn't understand why his execution is imminent, or understand exactly why he's being executed. That makes him mentally incompetent, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And:

If an inmate can't be executed, should he or she remain on death row?

A new call is coming from a nationwide association of attorneys, death penalty opponents, and a U.S. group of mental health experts to change the way mentally ill inmates are treated on death row.They all say a life sentence is more appropriate.

"It makes no sense for the state to keep someone on death row under severe conditions, when he's been recognized as severely ill," said Kristin Houle', with the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty in Austin.

On death row, all inmates spend 23 hours a day in their cell. Houle' calls that cruel and unusual punishment for the mentally ill, claiming it gives inmates little access to psychiatric care.

The state disagrees.

"That really is not a factor in this case," said Wilson. "What the factor is, is that (Riles) was competent when he was tried and given a legal sentence. His confinement is still legal and he simply has a condition right now that makes him not eligible for execution. But that could change."

The report also notes:

Courts and doctors have ruled five other death row inmates from Harris County are also mentally incompetent to be executed. Any change in Riles' case or state law could have a direct effect on many Texas inmates.

The Supreme Court ruling referenced is the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright.  Competency to be executed is also an issue in the case of Scott Panetti.  StandDown's mental illness index is here.  This is also a good opportunity to spotlight Kristin Houle's Prevention Not Punishment blog.

News Coverage of Indiana v. Edwards

The opinion is here.  The ScotusWiki page is here.

Linda Greenhouse reports, "Self-Representation by the Mentally Ill Is Curbed," in today's New York Times.

A mentally ill defendant who is nonetheless competent to stand trial is not necessarily competent to dispense with a lawyer and represent himself, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

The court said that judges could “take realistic account of the particular defendant’s mental capacities” and, in the interest of achieving a fair trial, deny the constitutional right to self-representation that criminal defendants ordinarily enjoy.

The 7-to-2 decision overturned a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that had found that a schizophrenic man was entitled to a new trial on a charge of attempted murder because the trial judge had improperly denied his request to represent himself.

The defendant, Ahmad Edwards, who was sometimes quite coherent and at other times decidedly not so, had differed with his lawyer over defense strategy. He wanted to argue self-defense, while his lawyer wanted to present a defense based on lack of intent.

And:

A landmark Supreme Court decision in 1975, Faretta v. California, established the right to self-representation as a basic constitutional right.

Writing for the majority on Thursday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the question in this case was answered neither by the Faretta decision, which did not involve a competency issue, nor by a subsequent decision that permitted a mentally ill defendant to waive the right to counsel and plead guilty.

In the Washington Post, Robert Barnes writes, "Supreme Court Rules On Self-Representation."

The self-representation case decided yesterday involved Ahmad Edwards, a delusional and schizophrenic man who fired shots outside an Indianapolis department store after attempting to steal shoes. It was only after six years in custody that he was found competent to stand trial. A judge insisted Edwards be represented by counsel, and he was found guilty of attempted murder, among other charges.

The Indiana Supreme Court said he should get a new trial, because U.S. Supreme Court precedents recognized a Sixth Amendment right of defendants to represent themselves at trial.

Breyer said it was not necessary to overrule cases such as 1975's Faretta v. California, which held that defendants have a right to self-representation even if it is likely to result in conviction. He said new studies have shown that instances of unfair trials are not widespread, and that giving judges the authority to insist upon the assistance of counsel will minimize them further.

"Supreme Court Limits Self-Representation by Mentally Ill Defendants," is Tony Mauro's coverage in Legal Times.

In the case on self-representation, Justice Stephen Breyer said the traditional test for competence to stand trial -- the ability to consult with counsel and to assist in preparing the defense -- does not weigh the additional skills needed to represent oneself. Someone competent to stand trial, Breyer wrote, may nonetheless "be unable to carry out the basic tasks needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel."

And:

  Breyer cited an American Psychiatric Association brief that said the kind of disorganized thinking and impaired expression that characterize severe mental illness can seriously hamper a defendant's "significantly expanded role required for self-representation even if he can play the lesser role of represented defendant."

The Court also said that in some instances, denying a defendant the right to self-representation will promote rather than deny the dignity of the defendant. "The spectacle that could result from [a mentally ill defendant's] self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling," Breyer wrote.

Mark Sherman's AP dispatch is, "Court limits self-representation for mentally ill."

Last term, the high court saw what could happen in these kinds of cases in the proceedings against Scott Panetti, a mentally ill killer from Texas who was nonetheless judged competent to stand trial and allowed to represent himself.

Panetti was convicted and sentenced to death after personally arguing that only an insane person could prove the insanity defense. He dressed in cowboy clothing and submitted an initial witness list that included Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy.

The court blocked his execution in June, in a ruling that did not address his role in his own defense.

If you missed it yesterday, Lyle Denniston had first-class analysis at SCOTUS Blog, "Faretta survives, with limits."

The Edwards opinion by Breyer, in dealing with mentally ill individuals who voice a desired to be their own defense counsel, provides one clear implication, and one quite unclear prospect.

It is clear, simply from the result, that states may now have one standard of mentally competency for putting a mentally impaired person on trial, and a higher standard that such a person would have to meet in order to be allowed self-representation. Ahmad Edwards had been found competent to be put on trial, but not to represent himself.

What is unclear, though, is what the higher standard is for representing one’s self when mental competency is at issue.  The Court expressly rejected a proposal by the state of Indiana that self-representation be denied whenever the accused “cannot communicate coherently with the court or a jury.”  The state had suggested that approach, saying it “fits Sixth Amendment doctrine, which allows some balancing of interests when defendants attempt self-representation.”

Yesterday's post is here.  More on Faretta v. California is here, via Oyez.

A Courageous Commutation

That's the title of an editorial in today's Washington Post.  LINK

VIRGINIA GOV. Timothy M. Kaine (D), a confidant of Barack Obama's and the first governor outside Illinois to endorse the senator's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, is routinely mentioned as a vice-presidential prospect. Many politicians in his position might bend or suspend principle to keep such prospects alive. But this week, Mr. Kaine commuted the death sentence of a mentally deficient triple killer to life in prison without parole. Under the circumstances, the decision, which could well provide convenient fodder for Republican attack ads in a national campaign, was courageous as well as fair-minded and fact-based.

As a candidate for governor in 2005, Mr. Kaine, a devout Catholic and lifelong opponent of capital punishment, said he would allow executions to proceed as a function of his office in respect of Virginia law. He has been true to his word, permitting five executions to go forward, more than any state except Texas, Oklahoma and Ohio. But the case of Percy L. Walton rightly gave him pause when he first reviewed it in 2006, and it was Mr. Walton's death sentence that the governor commuted on Monday.

And:

At his best, Mr. Walton seemed only vaguely aware of his situation. He told one psychiatrist that he expected to have access to a telephone and a job at Burger King after his execution. Over time, experts who assessed Mr. Walton have disagreed on his mental capacity and ability to grasp the fate that awaited him. So have judges. Ruling on his case in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, perhaps the nation's most conservative federal court, split 7 to 6 in deciding that he was mentally fit to be executed. Since then, there seems little doubt that his condition has deteriorated. Given the Supreme Court standard, it would have been a travesty of justice for Mr. Kaine to permit the state to execute such a man. In commuting his sentence, Mr. Kaine recognized and applied that standard, acting with guts and decency.

U.S. District Court Judge Rules Panetti Competent

That's the title of an article in this week's Fredericksburg Standard & Radio Post.  LINK  The ruling was issued in March, as noted in this post.

Nearly one year after a reprieve was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court for Fredericksburg convicted killer Scott Panetti, 50, the U.S. District Court in Austin has determined that Panetti is competent to be executed for the 1992 shooting deaths of his wife’s parents.

The recent order by Presiding Judge Sam Sparks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District now sends the case before the 5th Circuit Court, setting up a chain of legal proceedings that could ultimately return it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

District Attorney Bruce Curry of the 216th Judicial District in Kerrville confirmed Friday that Judge Sparks had re-heard the case and that he had issued “some fairly extensive findings of fact” in declaring Panetti competent to be executed.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case is here.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 consideration of Panetti v. Quarterman, via Oyez, is here.

Scholarship

Michael Perlin of the New York Law School has posted, "Insanity is Smashing Up Against My Soul: Panetti v. Quarterman and Questions that Won't Go Away," at SSRN.  Here's the abstract:

In Panetti v. Quarterman, the US Supreme Court expanded upon and clarified its earlier decision in Ford v. Wainwright, barring the execution of persons with mental disabilities who do not have a rational understanding of the reasons he is to be executed. The Panetti decision, however, has a second holding that may be equally important: that the failure to provide a defendant an adequate opportunity to submit expert evidence in response to the report filed by the court-appointed experts thus deprived him of his constitutionally adequate opportunity to be heard.

Both of these holdings leave open multiple questions that will likely be explored in subsequent cases (how severe does a mental illness have to be to qualify under this standard? how closely will it monitor the extent to which lower courts implement the new standard? To what extent does this decision augur a new level of comfort with expert testimony in other sorts of criminal proceedings). However, the Court chose not to address the question that many observers had thought was at the core of the case: whether a defendant can be medicated so as to make him competent to be executed? Does the Court's decision to not confront this question mean that it will never deal with such a case?

In this discussion of Panetti, I offer some possible answers to these questions.

The Scott Panetti index is here.  Thanks to Saor Stetler for circulating.

Panetti Sane Enough to Die

That's the title of Jordan Smith's article in the latest Austin Chronicle.  LINK

Texas death row inmate Scott Panetti is "seriously mentally ill" and has been for some time – in fact, as U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks ruled on March 26, he was "under the influence of this severe mental illness" when, in 1992, he murdered his in-laws, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, in Fredericksburg and remained ill "when he insisted on representing himself at trial." Yet Panetti is sane enough to be executed, Sparks ruled. His "delusions do not prevent his rational understanding of the causal connection between those murders and his death sentence, and he in fact has such an understanding," Sparks wrote. Indeed, Panetti's understanding "is most clearly demonstrated by his rationally articulated position that the punishment is unjustified: He believes the state should not execute him because he was mentally ill when he committed the murders."

Sparks ruled similarly in 2004, finding Panetti sane enough to die, but the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case, opining that the previous handling of Panetti's case was "flawed" and "too restrictive" to satisfy the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments. In deeming Panetti sane enough for execution, the courts had only considered whether Panetti was "aware" that he faced execution and that the state said he would be executed because he murdered the Alvarados. The problem, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court majority, is that Panetti doesn't actually believe that to be the case. Rather, Panetti has long said that the real reason the state wants him dead is to prevent him from preaching the "gospel of the Lord King." The question, in part, Ken­nedy wrote, was whether the effects of mental illness can "so impair" a prisoner's concept of reality so that he "cannot reach a rational understanding of the reasons for the execution."

The Supremes punted the Panetti case back to Sparks, tasking him with wading through the legal morass and taking a first crack at defining a standard against which to measure mental eligibility for execution – a standard that might ultimately be applied to other similarly situated inmates. In his ruling, however, Sparks raises additional questions about how to define and apply a broader standard – including wondering about the limits of making sanity determinations for an inmate like Panetti, whose impairment is "cyclical." In such a case, does a "period of improved lucidity" mark "him for death, or has he not 'regained' his sanity in a lucid period in the same way as a person who has made some stable improvement or recovery in mental condition can be said to have 'regained sanity'?" Sparks asks. "The court is concerned by these questions for the future, but they are not the work of the day."

Smith notes that the case will next be reviewed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Earlier coverage is here.

Another Twist in Scott Panetti's Case

U.S. Federal District Judge Sam Sparks has issued a ruling declaring Scott Panetti competent to be executed.  AFP reports, "Schizophrenic death row man in Texas on path to execution." 

It's important to note that Judge Sparks' ruling does not establish an execution date; that will be set be the state district court with authority over the case.  Also, there are currently no execution dates set in Texas due to the moratorium on lethal injection executions pending a ruling in Baze v. Rees, the Kentucky lethal injection case being considered by the Supreme Court.

A schizophrenic inmate in Texas is again on the path to execution after a federal judge pronounced him sufficiently rational to understand why he has been sentenced to death.

In 1986 the US Supreme Court ruled that a convict could be executed only if that person realized that he or she was going to die, and understood why.

Scott Panetti, 50, was sentenced to die for a double homicide he acknowledged having committed.

But the Supreme Court in June blocked his execution and ordered judges in Austin, Texas to determine if Panetti realized that he was to be executed as punishment for the murder of his in-laws.

Federal Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas gathered evidence from experts, prison cell mates, prison guards, and friends and relatives of Panetti to better understand the convict's mental state.

"Panetti was mentally ill when he committed his crime and continues to be mentally ill today," read Sparks' opinion, issued Wednesday.

"However, he has both a factual and rational understanding of his crime, his impending death, and the causal retributive connection between the two.

"Therefore, if any mentally ill person is competent to be executed for his crimes, this record establishes it is Scott Panetti," Sparks wrote.

Earlier coverage is here.

Hearing for Scott Panetti

Scott Panetti's lawyers won a major case, Panetti v. Quarterman, in the U.S. Supreme Court last year, which allowed his lawyers to return to federal district court to demonstrate the severity of his mental illness.

A hearing is being held yesterday, and Claire Osburn reports, "Judge must decide whether death row inmate's delusions prevent his execution," in the Austin American-Statesman.

A hearing is being held today in federal court to determine whether a man who killed two people understands why he received the death penalty.

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Texas on June 28 from executing Scott Panetti, 49, saying that he was improperly denied the chance to prove he is mentally unfit for execution. The ruling returned his case to U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, who must decide whether Panetti's delusions make him unable to understand why he received the death sentence.

Convicted of killing his in-laws in 1992, Panetti believes satanic forces are seeking his execution to keep him from preaching the Gospel, his defense lawyers have testified.

The U.S. Supreme Court, according to the majority decision, ruled that the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment means that inmates must understand why they are being put to death. The ruling did not provide a precise standard for assessing Panetti's claims.

A psychiatrist from the Rusk State Hospital testified today that Panetti is schizophrenic. Dr. David Self said he interviewed Panetti for five hours in November and asked him if he knew why he was on death row. "He said to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ," Self said.

The doctor said he did not think Panetti was faking mental illness because of Panetti's frequent hospitalizations before the killings. Panetti showed signs on mental illness during his interview, Self said, including showing emotions that were more intense than normal, Self said. "His anger would flare and his happiness was just too great," Self said.

Sparks said at the beginning of the hearing that he feels that no matter what decision he makes, the case will be appealed and land back in his court. He said he also has to determine what would happen if Panetti was declared incompetent. "Does that mean he can't be punished at all,?" Sparks said.

It was not know when the judge would reach a decision. The hearing is scheduled to last until at least Thursday.

Earlier coverage of the Panetti case is here.  The mental illness index is here.

60 Minutes Examines the Gregory Thompson Case in Tennessee

Tonight's CBS News' 60 Minutes examined the case of Gregory Thompson, who has been on Tennessee death row for 22 years.  Thompson's is a severely mentally ill man, and his lawyers believe that even while on medication he is insane, and thus barred from execution under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in Ford v. Wainwright.  The segment, report by Lara Logan, is, "Mentally Ill Prisoner Could Be Executed."

Of course, the last Supreme Court ruling on the application of Ford v. Wainwright is the ruling earlier this year in Panetti v. Quarterman.  Another Texas case, that of Steven Staley, raises issues of forced medication.

The mental illness index is here, where there are many earlier posts dealing with the Panetti and Staley cases.

ABA Journal on Panetti Ruling

The ABA Journal has, "Mentally Ill Death Row Inmates Get Another Chance: Court turns back Texas capital case once again."

The U.S. Supreme Court did more Thursday than block the execution of one mentally ill death row inmate in Texas. Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407. It also gave other mentally ill death row inmates potential new grounds to challenge their sentences, legal experts say.
       
In Panetti, the court held 5-4 that Scott Panetti, who was sentenced to die for the 1992 murders of his in-laws, had not been afforded a meaningful opportunity in the Texas state courts to show he was too mentally ill to be executed.

In the process, the court also held that the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had used an overly restrictive standard of incompetency last year when it cleared the way for Panetti’s execution.                

The decision was the fourth this term in which the high court slapped down capital cases from Texas or the 5th Circuit. In April, the court reversed three cases involving jury instructions during sentencing.

We find the state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution; and we determine that the federal appellate court employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner’s claim of incompetency on the merits,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.                

The 5th Circuit had held that a mentally ill death row inmate is competent for execution as long as he is aware he is to be put to death and why, even if he thinks the state’s stated         reason for doing so is a sham.

Earlier coverage is here and here.

Another Editorial on the Panetti Ruling

The Daytona Beach (FL) News-Journal has, "Insane men, optional justice."

A death sentence overturned Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court proves how arbitrary the American capital-punishment machine can be.

Scott Louis Panetti, convicted in Texas of killing his wife's parents, claimed to be inhabited by an alter ego named Sarge Ironhorse and said he was being persecuted for his religious beliefs. In other words, he's crazy as a bedbug -- and the Supreme Court held that it's illegal to execute the insane.

That makes perfect sense. Panetti's delusions made him incapable of assisting in his own defense (raising serious questions about the trial court judge's decision to allow Panetti to represent himself.)

But if it's illegal to execute the insane now, why was it legal in 2000 to kill Thomas Provenzano, the man who walked into an Orlando courthouse in 1984 and opened fire? Provenzano had a lengthy history of mental illness and went to his death believing himself to be Jesus Christ.

Two heinous and inexplicable crimes. Two perpetrators, both obviously insane. One lives, the other dies. And once again, Americans see proof of just how arbitrarily and unfairly the death penalty is administered in this country.

The same could be said of Kelsey Patterson, executed by Texas in May 2004.  Patterson's mental illness was so severe that even the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended a commutation.  Governor Perry rejected the recommendation, and Patterson was executed.  He almost certainly met the standards elaborated by the Supreme Court in the Panetti case.

Editorials on Panetti Ruling

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has, "Death and Madness."

The ruling probably won't have far-reaching consequences for Texas' Death Row. But it's yet another instance of the Supreme Court admonishing lower state and federal courts for misunderstanding what the Constitution requires when it comes to the ultimate penalty.

That Panetti killed Joe and Amanda Alvarado in Fredericksburg isn't at issue. But the subsequent proceedings are.

Despite Panetti's diagnosis of schizophrenia and history of mental hospitalization, state District Judge Stephen Ables let Panetti represent himself at his 1995 trial in Kerrville. A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation showed that Panetti was delusional. He dressed in cowboy clothes, included Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy on a witness list and claimed that he was not guilty by reason of insanity.

Still, a jury convicted Panetti and imposed a death sentence, and he lost his appeals.

When Panetti's lawyer argued in 2004 that he was too mentally ill to be executed, Ables ruled that he was competent after two court-appointed psychiatrists concluded that he deliberately acted bizarrely and knew why he would be put to death.

The Supreme Court said the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans used "an improperly restrictive test" to uphold that finding of competence. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy was particularly hard on Ables for not providing "the minimum process required."

"The state court refused to transcribe its proceedings, notwithstanding the multiple motions petitioner filed requesting this process," Kennedy wrote. "Based on the materials available to this court, it appears the state court on repeated occasions conveyed information to petitioner's counsel that turned out not to be true; provided at least one significant update to the State without providing the same notice to petitioner; and failed in general to keep petitioner informed as to the opportunity, if any, he would have to present his case. There is also a strong argument the court violated state law by failing to provide a competency hearing."

The Dallas Morning News looks at the Panetti ruling in part of its editorial, "Assessing the Supremes."

In another embarrassment for our state, the court again slapped Texas for carelessly administering the death penalty. In Panetti v. Quarterman, the court ruled that Texas tried to execute a mentally incompetent prisoner.

Exactly how many times will it take for our good state to get the point? Cases like this deepen our conviction that Texas must abolish its death penalty. Scott Panetti almost got executed because a Texas judge failed to even have a hearing about his mental competency.

Yes, he killed family members. But does our state really want to put to death mentally incompetent prisoners who failed to get a decent trial? Thanks to the Supreme Court, Texas didn't get the opportunity.

Also, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) praised the Court's ruling in this news release.

     "For once, law has caught up with medical science," said NAMI Director
of Policy and Legal Affairs Ronald S. Honberg. "The circumstances of this
case are tragic and no one minimizes the gravity of the crime or the
suffering of the victims. However, execution of someone who is profoundly
ill would only compound the original tragedy and represent a profound
injustice for us all."

    "Severe delusions mean severe illness. Rational understanding and
judgment are severely compromised. Application of the death penalty becomes
meaningless."

    NAMI previously filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in
the case with the American Psychological Association and the American
Psychiatric Association.

 

National Panetti Coverage Roundup

Ralph Blumenthal has, "Supreme Court Blocks Execution of Delusional Killer," in the New York Times.

Amplifying its ban against execution of the insane, a closely divided United States Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the death sentence of a delusional Texas murderer who insisted that he was being punished for preaching the Gospel.

In a rebuke to lower courts, the justices ruled 5 to 4 that the defendant, Scott Louis Panetti, had not been shown to have sufficient understanding of why he was to be put to death for gunning down his wife’s parents in 1992.

The court, acting on the last day of the 2006-7 term, declined to lay out a new standard for competency in capital cases. But it found that existing protections had not been afforded.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy provided the swing vote, joined by the court’s liberal wing: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The justices referred the case back to a federal district court to re-evaluate Mr. Panetti’s claims of insanity. They said the district court, Texas courts and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, had all failed to assess those claims properly.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas called the ruling “a half-baked holding that leaves the details of the insanity standard for the district court to work out.” He was joined in the minority by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Gregory W. Wiercioch, a staff lawyer for the Texas Defender Service who argued Mr. Panetti’s appeal before the justices in April, hailed the decision as “reaffirming and strengthening the grounds for proving incompetence” and said it “put the bite back into a standard that the Fifth Circuit had rendered essentially meaningless.”

Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said, “The Supreme Court has taken a much-needed step toward a more humane America.”

But the solicitor general of Texas, Ted Cruz, who had defended the sentence before the court, said the state would continue to seek Mr. Panetti’s execution.

“Unfortunately, today’s 5-to-4 decision will invite abuse from capital murderers, subject the courts to numerous false claims of incompetency and even further delay justice for the victims’ families,” Mr. Cruz said.

And:

One Texas jury deadlocked on his competence to stand trial, but a second jury found him sane enough. Proclaiming himself healed by God as “a born-again April fool,” he refused further antipsychotic medication, dismissed his lawyers and won approval from the trial judge, Stephen B. Ables, to represent himself in court in 1995.

He appeared with a Tom Mix cowboy hat slung over his back, wearing purple western shirts and cowboy boots. He tried to subpoena Jesus and repeatedly ignored Judge Ables’s orders. But it was his often brutal cross-examination of his estranged wife, Sonja, forcing her to relive the murders in graphic detail, that clearly terrified the jurors, who convicted him in 90 minutes and sentenced him to death.

Afterward, Dr. F. E. Seale, a psychiatrist who treated Mr. Panetti in 1986, voiced revulsion.

“I thought to myself, ‘My God, how in the world can our legal system allow an insane man to defend himself?’ ” Dr. Seale said. “ ‘How can this be just?’ ”

Henry Weinstein has, "High court spares mentally ill killer," in the Los Angeles Times.  The Chicago Tribune also carries a version of this report.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to a federal judge in Austin to reassess Panetti's mental health in light of the decision issued Thursday. Ted Cruz, the Texas solicitor general, said he would continue to press for Panetti's execution.

The case presented a particularly thorny question because evidence was introduced that Panetti was aware that he had killed Amanda and Joe Alvarado. But expert testimony was presented that Panetti, known as "the preacher" on Texas' death row, believed he was going to be executed because Texas was conspiring with the devil to block him from preaching the Gospel to fellow inmates — not because he murdered the Alvarados.

At an oral argument in April, Cruz asserted that Panetti was capable of understanding the connection between his crime and his punishment and was exaggerating his delusions.

But defense lawyer Gregory Wiercioch, of the Texas Defender Service, told the justices that Panetti did not rationally understand why he was to be executed. Consequently, Wiercioch said, killing Panetti would serve no legitimate retributive purpose.

That view eventually prevailed. The high court majority ruled that the 5th Circuit's standard for determining incompetence was too restrictive to provide Panetti the protections he was entitled to under the 8th Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Kennedy rejected the position taken by Cruz and the 5th Circuit, that Panetti's delusions were irrelevant as long as he was aware that Texas had made a link between his crime and the punishment.

"This test ignores the possibility that even if such awareness exists, gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put that awareness in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no purpose," Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy also found that execution would be inconsistent with a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Ford vs. Wainwright, which ruled that a person may not be put to death if he cannot perceive "the connection between his crime and his punishment."

Charles Lane has, "Execution of Schizophrenic Killer Blocked byHigh Court," in the Washington Post.

The court ruled in 1976 that it is unconstitutional to execute an insane prisoner, but since then no death-row inmate has succeeded in overturning a death sentence based on mental illness. Yesterday's ruling removed one obstacle to such claims: the fact that a prisoner's disorder might not become evident until after the deadline for raising constitutional appeals has passed.

By a vote of 5 to 4, the court said the law does not bar consideration of convicted murderer Scott Louis Panetti's claim that he is too delusional to understand the state's reasons for planning to put him to death, even though Panetti waited until his execution date was set in 2003 to raise it.

Requiring prisoners to meet the deadline would effectively require every inmate to lodge an "unripe" insanity claim just to preserve the option, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The court also held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the New Orleans-based federal court that regulates capital punishment in Texas, used an overly restrictive definition of mental incompetence when it rejected Panetti's claim. Panetti, who has a history of hospitalizations, says he knows that the state says it wants him to die for the 1992 murder of his mother-in-law and father-in-law. But he insists that the real reason is to prevent him from preaching the gospel.

Laura Parker of USA Today has, "Court stays execution of mentally ill prisoner."

The ruling is not expected to have wider implications for mentally ill death row inmates, legal experts said, because it focused narrowly on Panetti's severe mental illness.

"Many people on death row have degrees of mental illness and this does not protect them," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, a watchdog group that opposes capital punishment. He added that the decision signals a willingness by the high court to "continue the dialogue about whether the death penalty is being administered fairly and against the right people."

The ruling marked the fourth time this year the Supreme Court has reversed a Texas death penalty case. The other cases involved challenges to a Texas law that did not allow consideration of mitigating evidence such as mental illness.

The court ordered a federal judge to reconsider Panetti's mental health.

Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor has, "Court strikes down death sentence for mentally ill man."

The majority justices said that Mr. Panetti has had a long history of mental illness, and it was unclear whether he lacked a rational understanding of the true purpose of his death sentence. The high court declined to establish a new standard for mental competence before an individual may be subject to capital punishment. Instead, the court sent the case back to the lower courts in Texas to evaluate Panetti's claims of incompetence in more detail.

"Expert evidence may clarify the extent to which severe delusions may render a subject's perception of reality so distorted             that he should be deemed incompetent," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority justices.          

The Constitution's Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishments. The high court in recent years has set higher constitutional standards for the execution of juveniles and those diagnosed with mental retardation.

Prior to Thursday's ruling, the Eighth Amendment standard enforced by the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals for those with mental illness had been whether the condemned prisoner had an awareness that he or she had committed a crime and that the prisoner was being punished for that crime with a death sentence.

Lawyers for Panetti argued that the awareness standard was too low. They said that rather than mere awareness, a death-row inmate with mental illness should be capable of having a rational understanding of the reason for the execution. Severe delusions about the reasons for a death sentence undermine the retributive purpose of capital punishment, they said.

Gary Fields of the Wall Street Journal has, "Supreme Court Bars a Texas Execution."

The court has long held that insane defendants could not be executed. But that 1986 ruling, Ford v. Wainwright, didn't define what insanity is or how states should determine that. Instead, the court left it to the states to create their own standards for the level of competency a defendant must reach to be executed. Yesterday's ruling strikes down the Texas standard and could affect a small number of cases in other states where defendants are arguing their mental illnesses make it difficult to understand why they are being put to death.

In the opinion, Justice Kennedy said "gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put an awareness of a link between a crime and its punishment in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no proper purpose."

While Thursday's ruling continues a trend in which the Court has limited the imposition of the death penalty on defendants with limited intellectual capacity or maturity levels, it didn't address the rising issue of the influx of mentally ill defendants in the criminal justice system and on death row. In the opinion, Justice Kennedy stated as much, saying: "we do not attempt to set down a rule governing all competency determinations."

Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the opinion's importance is that though restrictive, it follows the 2002 Supreme Court ruling that concluded it was unconstitutional to put a mentally retarded defendant to death and a 2004 opinion in which the court ruled that defendants who were under 18 at the time of their crime should be exempt from capital punishment as well.

"We never expected that Panetti would address the larger issue of whether mentally ill people can be executed. That issue remains for another day," said David Elliott, of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

An expansive pronouncement on mental illness and the death penalty would have implications for hundreds of inmates. There are more than 3,300 people awaiting execution in the U.S. according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group critical of how the death penalty is administered. Various organizations conservatively estimate that at least 10% of them suffer from serious mental illness. In all, about 17% of the nation's prisoners have a diagnosis of serious mental

Derrick Nunnally in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has, "Hayward native's execution blocked."

In Jump River, Jack and Yvonne Panetti said they were relieved when the news broke Thursday morning about their son's reprieve from Texas death row.

"He never belonged there," Jack Panetti said. "He should've been in a mental institution getting help."

Panetti, 49, had been hospitalized 14 times for mental illness before the 1992 slayings, but the Texas trial court deemed him competent to defend himself and sane enough to get the death penalty. As quoted by Kennedy in Thursday's decision, the standby lawyer appointed to Panetti's 1995 trial described his conduct as "bizarre," "scary" and "trance-like," and post-conviction mental evaluations and interviews have yielded similar descriptions of Panetti's state.

Yet the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the trial court's ruling that Panetti could lawfully be executed, largely because he could say that he had been sentenced to die for committing murder, no matter whether he believed the words.

Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service agency that took Panetti's case to the Supreme Court, observed Thursday that the 5th Circuit has never found anyone too mentally disturbed to be executed. She hailed the high court's ruling for laying down a national guideline to replace previous regional inconsistencies. She said that "no one could ever meet" the now-rejected threshold for insanity that the Texas courts and 5th Circuit had set for Panetti.

"If someone like Scott Panetti is not too mentally ill to be executed," Keilen said, "then there isn't anyone who is."

In a 1999 court affidavit, even Panetti's former wife, Sonja Alvarado, whose parents he killed, wrote, "I now know that Scott is mentally ill and should not be put to death."

Texas Panetti Coverage Roundup

We have lots of similar headlines, but here they are.  Most are new, or updated from yesterday's posts. Chuck Lindell at the Austin American-Statesman has, "High Court blocks Texas death sentence."

The 5-4 ruling returns Panetti's case to Austin, where U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks must determine whether Panetti's delusions make him mentally incompetent to be executed for the 1992 murder of his Fredericksburg in-laws, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, while his estranged wife and 3-year-old daughter watched.

Though Panetti will remain on death row as his case progresses, the ruling should make it easier for mentally ill inmates to avoid execution, lawyers said, because it clarifies rules that bar states from putting insane people to death.

"(Before), all you needed to do is ask the guy, 'Do you know you're on death row?' Even if he thinks he's a giant turtle, if he says yes to that, you can execute the man," said Austin lawyer Keith Hampton, a member of Panetti's legal team.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said it is not enough that inmates understand that they are to be executed — the standard developed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears Texas cases.

Rather, Kennedy wrote, the Constitution's bar against cruel and unusual punishment demands that inmates also understand why they are to be put to death.

"A prisoner's awareness of the state's rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it," Kennedy wrote.

"Gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put . . . a link between a crime and its punishment in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no proper purpose," he added.

Panetti, who was hospitalized numerous times for schizophrenia and paranoid delusions before killing his in-laws, believes satanic forces are seeking his execution to silence his mission to preach the Gospel, defense experts have testified.

Todd Gillman has, "Supreme Court blocks Texas man's execution," in the Dallas Morning News.

The case posed the issue of how insane a person must be before a death sentence becomes unconstitutional, and marks the fifth time the Supreme Court has reversed a Texas death penalty since October.

At trial Mr. Panetti, now 49, insisted on representing himself. He wore a purple cowboy costume, tried to subpoena Jesus, the pope and John F. Kennedy, and testified in the persona of his alter ego "Sarge." He'd been hospitalized 14 times for mental illness in the decade before the murders, at his in-laws’ Fredericksburg home.

Lawyers handling his appeal argued that few, if any, death row inmates are as mentally incompetent and that putting him to death would amount to “mindless vengeance” with no retributive purpose. Four lower courts did find him competent to stand trial, and a jury rejected his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, found that Mr. Panetti’s mental illness is so severe that it should have been considered by the federal appeals court that handled the case.

“Someone who is condemned to death for an atrocious murder may be so callous as to be unrepentant; so self-centered and devoid of compassion as to lack all sense of guilt; so adept in transferring blame to others as to be considered, at least in the colloquial sense, to be out of touch with reality,” Justice Kennedy wrote, but Mr. Panetti’s problem isn’t merely “a misanthropic personality or an amoral character. It is a psychotic disorder.”

Max Baker has, "Court: Inmate too mentally ill to be executed," in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the 5th Circuit upheld Panetti's conviction, and he was scheduled to be executed in 2004 before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks halted the execution so his competency could be re-evaluated.

Although Sparks agreed that Panetti qualified for execution under the law, his ruling raised questions about the standard being used by the federal appeals court, saying the case arguably "required a more nuanced standard."

"In these cases, the retributive goal of capital punishment is not met, and carrying out an execution in those cases is not befitting a civilized society," said Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service.

Joining Kennedy in the majority opinion were justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Patty Reinert and Mike Tollson have, "Texas competency rules too narrow, high court decides," in the Houston Chronicle.

Gregory Wiercioch, an attorney with the Texas Defender Service who argued the case before the court in April, applauded the decision, saying, "Today the Supreme Court recognized that executing Scott Panetti would be a mindless, meaningless and miserable spectacle."

Thursday's ruling expands on the 1986 decision, Ford v. Wainwright, which barred execution of the insane.

Attorney Richard Burr, who brought that case on behalf of Florida inmate Alvin Ford, said the Panetti decision gives the earlier ruling more teeth and meaning.

"It provides much more direction for the states," Burr said. "It's the right next decision in the evolution of the law."

Thursday's ruling is not "going to open up Pandora's box," said Ron Honberg, legal director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Panetti's behalf. "There are not that many people in his condition."

Maro Robbins has, "Supreme Court ruling offers reprieve for Fredericksburg killer," in the San Antonio Express-News.

Kennedy's opinion said the lower courts improperly ignored Scott Panetti's hallucinations and misapplied the law when they decided the inmate was sane enough to be executed.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reached this conclusion after finding Panetti's psychotic beliefs about spiritual warfare didn't matter; the inmate simply needed to know that Texas said it was punishing him for the murders.

This wasn't sufficient to establish Panetti's sanity, the Supreme Court replied Thursday.    

Ordering a federal trial judge to review the convict's delusions, the court's majority hinted, but stopped short of saying, that inmates need to rationally understand why they're being executed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's most conservative members, including its newest additions, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Charles Lane Reports on the Panetti Decision

"Court Blocks Execution of Mentally Ill Inmate," is the headline at WashingtonPost.com.

By a vote of 5-4, the court said that the law does not bar consideration of convicted murderer Scott Louis Panetti's claim that he is too delusional to understand the state's reasons for planning to put him to death, even though Panetti waited until his execution date was set in 2003 to raise it.

Requiring prisoners to meet the deadline would effectively require every inmate to lodge an "unripe" insanity claim just to preserve the option, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding "to the burden imposed on courts, applicants, and the States, with no clear advantage to any."

The court also held that state courts must permit inmates to introduce their own expert testimony in their appeals, and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the New Orleans-based federal court that regulates capital punishment in Texas, used an overly restrictive definition of mental incompetence when it rejected Panetti's claim.

Follow the link to read the entire article.

Henry Weinstein Reports on Panetti Decision

"High court spares mentally ill killer from execution," is the headline at the Los Angeles Times website.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 today that Texas could not execute a man because his severe mental illness meant that he could not comprehend why he was being executed.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, spared the life of Scott Louis Panetti, 49, who murdered his former in-laws in 1992 after battling mental health problems for years.

Panetti has been on death row in Texas since 1995 and has been diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Both Panetti's lawyers and attorneys for the state said he was mentally disturbed. The question was whether he was sufficiently mentally ill that it would violate the constitutional bar against cruel and unusual punishment to execute him.

Panetti was hospitalized for mental illness 14 times in the decade before he shot to death his former in-laws as his estranged wife and her son watched.

During Panetti's trial, he exhibited bizarre behavior, wearing a purple cowboy suit and 10-gallon hat and subpoenaing President John F. Kennedy, Pope John Paul II and Jesus Christ as witnesses.

Panetti was ruled mentally competent to stand trial and mentally competent to be executed. Before today's ruling, four courts, including the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected pleas by Panetti's lawyers to spare his life.

The case presented a particularly thorny question because evidence was introduced that Panetti was aware that he had killed Amanda and Joe Alvarado. But expert testimony was presented that Panetti, known as "the Preacher" on Texas' death row, believed he was going to be executed because Texas was conspiring with the devil to block him from preaching the Gospel to fellow inmates, not because of the murders of Amanda and Joe Alvarado.

At an oral argument in April, Texas' Solicitor Gen. Ted Cruz asserted that Panetti was capable of understanding the connection between his crime and his punishment and was exaggerating the extent of his delusions.

But defense lawyer Gregory Wiercioch of the Texas Defender Service, told the justices that Panetti did not rationally understand why he was to be executed. Consequently, Wiercioch said that killing Panetti would serve no legitimate retributive purpose.

That view eventually prevailed.

Follow the link to read the entire article.

 

Todd Gillman Reports on Panetti Decision

"Supreme Court blocks Texas man's execution," is on the Dallas Morning News website.

The Supreme Court blocked the execution Thursday of a mentally ill Texas man whose lawyers say he is too delusional to understand the legal process.

Scott Panetti, a paranoid schizophrenic, shot and killed his in-laws 15 years ago in front of his estranged wife and their 3-year-old daughter. He now thinks that Satan is using the state’s penal machinery to stop him from preaching the Gospel.

The case posed the issue of how insane a person must be before a death sentence becomes unconstitutional, and the ruling came at the end of the Supreme Court’s term.

At trial, Mr. Panetti, now 49, insisted on representing himself. He wore a purple cowboy costume, tried to subpoena Jesus, the pope and John F. Kennedy, and testified in the persona of his alter ego "Sarge." He'd been hospitalized 14 times for mental illness in the decade before the murders, at his in-laws’ Fredericksburg home.

Lawyers handling his appeal argued few, if any, death row inmates are as mentally incompetent and that putting him to death would amount to “mindless vengeance” with no retributive purpose.

Four lower courts did find him competent to stand trial, and a jury rejected his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, found that Mr. Panetti’s mental illness is so severe that it should have been considered.

Follow the link to read the entire story.

Max Baker Reports on Panetti Decision

"Supreme Court Blocks Texas Execution," is on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram website.

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the execution of Texas inmate Scott Panetti Thursday, saying that the killer who appeared in court wearing a purple cowboy suit and a 10-gallon hat is so mentally ill he lacks a rational understanding of why he is being put to death.

Panetti, who acted as his own attorney and called as witnesses President John F. Kennedy, Pope John Paul II and Jesus Christ, was convicted in the 1992 slaying of his estranged wife’s parents in front of his wife and young daughter.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion questioned whether the Panetti’s execution serves any purpose since Panetti, who has been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, can't appreciate the connection between his crime and his punishment.

"The potential for a prisoner's recognition of the severity of the offense and the objective of community vindication are called into question," Kennedy wrote, "if the prisoner’s mental state is so distorted by a mental illness that his awareness of the crime has little or no relation to the understanding of those concepts shared by the community as a whole."

And:

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his convictions, and he was scheduled to be executed in 2004 before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks halted the execution so that his competency could be re-evaluated.

While Sparks agreed Panetti qualified for execution under the law, his ruling raised questions about the standard being used by the federal appeals court, saying the case arguably "required a more nuanced standard."

Follow the link to read the entire story.

 

Maro Robbins Reports on Panetti Decision

"U.S. Supreme Court blocks execution in Texas," is posted on the San Antonio Express-News website.  It's the first non-AP article I've seen on media websites.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided Thursday with a schizophrenic murderer from Fredericksburg, reinforcing its previous decision that the execution of deluded inmates who don’t understand their punishment is unconstitutional.

The ruling represented a sweep of sorts for the residents of death row in Livingston. In the four capital cases from Texas that the high court reviewed this term, it sided each time with the convicts.

More than the others, the case of Scott Louis Panetti was viewed by some as a gauge of the court's mood on capital punishment because, ultimately, it rested less on procedural precedent than a judgment call about the line between stern punishment and unconstitutional cruelty.

As with the others the justices answered the question – how much do inmates need to understand their executions – by the narrowest of margins, five votes to four.

And as in the other rulings, Justice Anthony Kennedy supplied the decisive swing vote. “Gross delusions stemming from severe mental disorder” can so erode an inmate’s understanding of the connection between their crime and their execution “that the punishment can serve no proper purpose,” Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Panetti, 49, had been hospitalized more than a dozen times and diagnosed as schizophrenic by 1992 when he barged into the home of his parents-in-law Joe and Amanda Alvarado and shot them with a .30-06 caliber rifle, while his estranged wife and toddler looked on.

Follow the link to read the entire article.

Initial Panetti News Coverage

AP has, "Court blocks execution," from the Washington bureau.

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.

The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. "This argument, we hold, should have been considered," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.

Panetti's lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars "the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing," they said in court papers.

And:

Then-Justice Lewis Powell said 20 years ago that a person may not be put to death if he cannot perceive "the connection between his crime and his punishment."

More on the 1986 case of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), is here.