Judge Orders Competency Evaluation for Jeff Wood

Just hours before the execution of Jeff Wood was scheduled to take place, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio granted a request by Wood's attorneys to delay the execution so they could hire a mental health expert to pursue their arguments that he is incompetent to be executed. Texas courts had previously refused similar appeals.

Here are excerpts from the story that ran in the Houston Chronicle ("Accomplice in 1996 slaying gets execution delay," August 22, 2008):

"Wood's 'motion presents non-frivolous arguments suggesting (he) currently lacks a rational understanding of the connection between his role in his offense and the punishment imposed upon him,' Garcia wrote in his order.

While Garcia wrote that the evidence was far from compelling, there were enough facts to conclude Wood had made a 'substantial threshold showing of insanity.'

Garcia wrote that his decision was based on the state trial court's refusal to afford Wood fundamental due process protections mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision [in Panetti v. Quarterman], which blocked the execution of a mentally ill Texas death row inmate because lower courts failed to consider whether he had a rationa lunderstanding of why he was to be killed. (Ed. Note: Panetti has since been found competent to be executed though he does not have an execution date.)

Wood's attorneys say he suffers from paranoia and delusions, but the state does not recognize he suffers from mental illness. ..."

and

"Garcia appointed attorneys Scott Sullivan of San Antonio and Jared Tyler of Houston to represent Wood and a psychiatrist to work with them.

'We are relieved that we are going through the process whereby the court will determine if he is competent to be executed,' Sullivan said. 'It is a process that is dearly needed in this case.'

Sullivan said he will report the results of his client's psychiatric testing to the court early next year.

If the judge, after considering the psychiatric evaluation, finds Wood competent, he again will be scheduled for execution. If not, he will receive psychiatric care in a prison setting.

Sullivan acted as Wood's court-appointed attorney in an unsuccessful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the high court's rebuff, Wood, though indigent, has been without court-appointed counsel. A Kerrville state district court denied Wood's petition to obtain another court-appointed lawyer.

Sullivan said he has provided Wood free legal assistance as the execution date drew near.

In a terse parsing of legal procedures, Garcia noted that Wood, in his latest appeals, was granted neither a court-appointed lawyer nor expert assistance in establishing that he was not competent.

Instead, Garcia wrote, the state insisted Wood make a 'substantial showing of incompetency' before he was entitled to a court-designated lawyer or mental health expert.

'With all due respect,' the judge wrote, 'a system which requires an insane person to first make a 'substantial showing' of his own lack of mental capacity without the assistance of counsel or a mental health expert, in order to obtain such assistance is, by definition, an insane system.'

Garcia conceded that Wood's claim of incompetence 'is far from compelling,' but noted that 'petitioner's delusional thought processes convinced at least one jury he was incompetent to stand trial in May 1997.'

The judge noted that mental health experts who interviewed Wood during the period between his two trials found the killer's 'narcissistic tendencies and almost delusional belief in the inevitability of his ultimate vindication have grown more prominent.'

'Moreover,' the judge wrote, 'the petitioner exhibited a bizarre, seemingly paranoid, clearly suicidal ideation during his capital trial.' During thepunishment phase, Wood banned his attorneys from calling witnesses on his behalf.

Garcia wrote that Wood's petition for a stay 'at least arguably suggest(s) petitioner lacks a rational understanding of the causal link between his rolein his criminal offense and the reason he has been sentenced to death.'"

And here is the article that appeared in the New York Times ("Federal Judge, Chastising the Texas Courts, Orders a Stay of Execution," August 22, 2008):

"With only hours until his scheduled execution, a man won a stay Thursday when a federal judge granted him a hearing to determine whether he was mentally competent.

The condemned man, Jeffery Lee Wood, 35, was to be put to death Thursday evening for a killing committed by his partner in a 1996 robbery. But the execution was put off for at least six months by the decision of the judge, Orlando Luis Garcia of the Federal District Court in San Antonio, who suggested that he would hold the hearing next February or March.

The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, had yet to decide Thursday night whether he would appeal the decision, said a spokeswoman for his office, Lauri Saathoff.

Mr. Wood’s lawyers argue that he is too delusional to understand why he is to die and thinks that among other things he is the victim of a Freemason conspiracy.

Judge Garcia wrote that Mr. Wood’s bizarre statements at his trial and in prison 'at least arguably suggest the petitioner lacks a rational understanding of the causal link between his role in his criminal offense and the reason he has been sentenced to death.'

The judge said the Texas courts erred badly in the last week when they refused to hire mental health experts to determine whether Mr. Wood was mad or to appoint a lawyer to represent him at a competency hearing.

The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to execute insane people who cannot understand why they are being put to death or that their execution is imminent.

Judge Garcia said lawyers for Mr. Wood had submitted enough evidence of a delusional state of mind to warrant a hearing on the matter, and he strongly chastised the state courts for denying Mr. Wood a lawyer and a psychologist to help make that claim.

Mr. Wood was caught in a Catch-22, the judge said. The state courts ruled that he had to show he was insane for them to appoint a lawyer and a psychologist to help him prove he was insane. That, the judge said, is 'an insane system.'

Mr. Wood has a very limited intellect and a history of emotional problems, learning disabilities and, in prison, suicide attempts.

'He will become delusional and deny the apparent reality right in front of him,' said one of his lawyers, J. Scott Sullivan. 'He has a delusion a bribewould solve this whole problem.'

Mr. Wood was arrested shortly after his partner in crime, Daniel Reneau, fatally shot a cashier during the robbery of a gas station 12 years ago. Mr. Wood was outside in a getaway car when the shot was fired by Mr. Reneau, who was executed in 2002.

Mr. Wood’s mental problems were severe enough that one jury found him incompetent to stand trial. After spending time in a mental hospital, he was found competent by a second jury. In 1998, he was convicted of murder under a Texas law that makes all who are involved in a felony, like robbery, subject to the death penalty if one of them commits murder in the course of it.

Evidence of Mr. Wood’s mental troubles was never brought before the jury that imposed the death penalty, largely because he became angry and told his lawyers to do nothing during the penalty phase, instructions with which they complied. In his ruling on Thursday, Judge Garcia said that this behavior by Mr. Wood was 'bizarre, seemingly paranoid and clearly suicidal.'"
***

Additional coverage:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_delays_execution_blasts_insane_system_to_determine_sanity/
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpkdpV0pGSS_ozv30DC1F1QkVd5wD92MUUEG4
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTfYEAqM59CPb8mVNODlJeBudbiw
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5956797.html

Jeff Wood Receives Stay of Execution

A federal judge has granted a request to delay the execution of Jeff Wood, in order to allow his attorneys to hire a mental health expert to pursue their arguments that he is incompetent to be executed.

Here's a press release from Texas Defender Service:

STAY OF EXECUTION GRANTED IN TEXAS DEATH PENALTY CASE OF MENTALLY-ILL INMATE WHO WAS NOT TRIGGERMAN

WOOD EXECUTION HALTED BASED ON TEXAS STATE COURTS FAILURE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS ON ISSUES RELATING TO WOOD'S MENTAL ILLNESS

Austin -- Today, the Federal District Court granted a stay of execution in the case of Jeff Wood to allow the court to consider compelling evidence that Jeff Wood is too mentally ill to be executed. The Court held that the Texas state courts have not carefully reviewed the question of Wood's competence and that a stay of execution is necessary to ensure that Wood's mental health issues are fully presented and considered by the courts. The Court's Order Granting Stay of Execution is attached.

"We applaud the Federal District Court for upholding Jeff Wood's rudimentary due process right to have his competency evaluated," said Andrea Keilen, executive director of Texas Defender Service, who, along with attorney Scott Sullivan, are representing Mr. Wood.

The Federal District Court authorized an attorney and the assistance of mental health experts, pointing out that the Texas state courts had not complied with the basic due process that the United States Supreme Court required in another Texas case - that of Scott Panetti, a mentally ill death row inmate with a 20-year history of schizophrenia, who was permitted to represent himself at trial dressed in a purple cowboy costume.

In its 20-page order, the Court stated, "With all due respect, a system that requires an insane person to first make "a substantial showing" of his own lack of mental capacity without the assistance of counsel or a mental health expert, in order to obtain such assistance is, by definition, an insane system."

Prosecutors have indicated they will not appeal today's decision. Yesterday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the application for clemency ona vote of 7-0 despite the mental health evidence and fact that it isundisputed that Jeff Wood did not kill the victim in this case, but rather wasoutside the building in a car at the time of the murder. The actual killer, Daniel Reneau, was already executed by the State of Texas in 2002.

Wood was convicted and sentenced to death as a party for the death of Kriss Keeran in Kerr County, Texas. Mr. Wood was convicted under Texas' "law of parties" statute that allows for the conviction of participants in a crime even if they have do not know a murder will be committed or commit murder themselves.

Wood has never taken a human life by his own hands. Keeran's unfortunate death was the result of a reckless scheme devised to steal the money that had accumulated in a Kerrville convenience store over a holiday weekend. Reneau armed himself, entered the store, and shot the victim. Wood was involved in the robbery this case because of his longstanding mental illness that allowed him to be easily manipulated by the principal actor, Daniel Reneau. Wood's emotional and psychological impairments, including his intellectuall imitations, diminished Wood's capacity to anticipate what Daniel Reneau would do inside the convenience store.

At the punishment phase of the trial, influenced by his mental health issues, Woods directed his lawyers not to present any evidence in his defense. Mr. Wood's attorneys made no cross examination of any of the State's witnesses. They presented no evidence or witnesses on Mr. Wood's behalf. And they offered no reasons or arguments why the twelve people sitting on Mr. Wood's jury should extend mercy to him and spare his life.

Wood's mental illness was a critical element at trial and in 1997, Wood was initially found incompetent to stand trial. Mr. Wood suffers today from the same psychological and emotional impairments for which a jury found him incompetent to stand trial in 1997. He has never received psychiatric or mental health care for these impairments. The same deficiencies that prevented Mr. Wood from communicating with his trial lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding prevent Mr. Wood from having a rational understanding of his death sentence and impending execution.

A neuropsychologist who evaluated Wood's competence to stand trial said that Mr. Wood "ha[d] a delusional system, an inability to grasp the reality surrounding the issues specific to this case, his role in it, in the crime, as well as other things that present a direct threat to his own well-being, his own sense of self."
###

More on George Banks Competency Hearing

The Citizens Voice, out of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, has this update on the competency hearing of death row inmate George Banks ("Final expert says Banks incompetent for execution," August 16, 2008):

"The psychological disorders that have turned mass murderer George Banks into a rambling paranoid have not improved since before he was scheduled to be executed in December 2004, psychiatrist Richard G. Dudley Jr. said Friday during the second day of testimony in Banks’ competency hearing.

Dudley, the third and final psychological expert called by Banks’ attorneys, said the killer’s psychosis and vast delusions have made him incompetent to be executed, to petition for clemency or assist his attorneys.

Banks, 66, went on a shooting spree in September 1982 that left 13 people dead, including four girlfriends, who ranged in age from 23 to 29, five of his children, ages 1 to 5, and four others. He has been on death row since June 1983.

Banks believes, 'Jesus from Washington, D.C.' vacated his sentence, but a conspiracy has kept him incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution here, about 30 miles northwest of Philadelphia, until he renounces God, Dudley said.

'The central theme of the delusions is that Jesus, (or) God has pardoned him and therefore there is no case against him,' Dudley said, echoing the testimony of the two defense experts who appeared Thursday — psychiatrist John O’Brien and forensic psychologist Jethro Toomer.

Dudley said Banks believes the state Department of Corrections would go to elaborate measures to push him to renounce his religious beliefs, including subjecting him to a simulated execution.

'He said Jesus has jurisdiction over his life, not man, not the courts,' Dudley said.

Those beliefs, combined with a rambling, unfocused and illogical thought process, make it impossible for Banks to comprehend the meaning and totality of his death sentence, Dudley said.

'As a result of this delusional system, he does not appreciate his death sentence,' Dudley said. 'The content of his delusions are directly related to his understanding of the crime and his punishment.'

Dudley evaluated Banks prior to his 2004 execution, which was stayed by a last-minute ruling from the state Supreme Court, and in April, in preparation for the competency hearing.

Dudley said Banks’ behavior during the April meeting prevented him from asking questions designed to gauge Banks’ understanding of his circumstances and possible execution.

'He blurted out various things,' Dudley said. 'I just stood there and listened to him.'

Jennifer Buck, an attorney with the state Attorney General’s Office, questioned how Dudley could determine that Banks is incompetent to face death without asking about the death penalty.

'You didn’t need to ask him?' Buck asked.

'Not again, no,' Dudley said.

'You only needed to ask him that once?'

'It would have been nice to ask him,' Dudley said. 'If he had been cooperative.'

The prosecution’s psychological experts, psychiatrists Timothy J. Michals and Stephen Mechanick, are scheduled to testify Monday.

Senior Judge Michael T. Conahan, who has presided over recent proceedings in the case, prevented Michals from testifying at a competency hearing in February 2006 after Banks’ attorneys said the psychiatrist met with Banks without their knowledge.

Conahan deemed Banks incompetent to be executed, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the state Supreme Court because the prosecution case had been compromised by the exclusion of Michals and the use of another expert, psychiatrist Michael Welner, who had little time to prepare.

In a September 2005 report, Michals said Banks had the competency to be executed.

'It is my opinion that although Mr. Banks has a psychotic disorder,' Michals said. 'He had sufficient mental capacity to understand that he has been tried, convicted and sentenced to death as a result of the death of 13 people.'
***
Read more about the Banks case here.

TX Death Row Inmate Raymond Riles - Incompetent to be Executed, Still on Death Row

KPRC Local 2 news in Houston recently investigated the case of Texas death row inmate Raymond Riles, who has been declared incompetent to be executed on numerous occasions. Riles has spent more than 30 years on death row and will remain there indefinitely, despite the fact that the state is not seeking an execution date (and has not done so since 1986). All parties agree that Riles sufffers from severe mental illness and does not meet the standards for competency (awareness of his execution and the reason for it).

In its 1986 decision Ford v. Wainwright, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute someone who does not understand the reason for or the reality of his or her punishment. The Ford decision left the determination of insanity and competency for execution up to each state. It did not include any guidance to states as to how to handle the cases of those found incompetent to be executed.

The American Bar Association Recommendation on the Death Penalty and Persons with Mental Disabilities, which has been endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, states that if, after exhausting his or her appeals, a death row inmate has been found incompetent to be executed, the sentence of death should be reduced to the sentence imposed in capital cases when execution is not an option.

Read a verbatim transcript of the story ("Is 30 Years Too Long on Texas Death Row?"), which aired on August 12, 2008. You can also watch the video at http://www.click2houston.com/video/17178415/index.html, which includes footage of KPRC's death row interview with Raymond Riles.

"Tonight, Local 2 Investigates digs into the case of an inmate from Houston who has been on death row for more than 30 years. So why hasn't Raymond Riles been executed?

When you read and hear his first TV interview in more than 20 years, you may understand why.

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.

'If you don't meet the standard, then you cannot be legally executed,' said Wilson.

During our interview, Riles told us he believes God committed his crime, thinks he was chosen to release men from death row, and believes a lethal injection would not kill him.

Riles also blamed God for his prison suicide attempt in 1985. Riles set himself on fire in his cell.
'God did that,' said Riles. 'God consumed me in fire.'

In 1986, Riles was inches from the death chamber in Huntsville and just minutes from execution.

That's when a federal court issued a last-minute stay. It was the fourth time the state scheduled Riles' execution. A new date hasn't been scheduled for the past 22 years.

'As long as he's living, I'm still living,' said Helen Riles, Raymond Riles' sister. 'We're still living.'

Helen Riles spoke to us from her Houston home. She's calls her brother's three decades on death row 'bittersweet.'

While Raymond Riles hasn't been executed, Helen Riles is fighting to get her brother off of death row and into a mental health facility instead.

'I don't think he could ever come all the way back,' said Helen Riles. 'I really don't. But he would able to feel more comfortable and get more rehabilitation.'

And that's the debate. 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.'

That's right. Wilson says Riles is still periodically tested by doctors. His mental state and his future could always change.

Right now, Texas law doesn't allow a death sentence to be replaced by a life sentence.

Wilson argues Riles' punishment stands, no matter what his mental state is now. Many call that justice for the victims.

So, at age 58, Raymond Riles remains on death row -- 33 years and counting. His family and activists say they'll continue to work to change the law that keeps him there.

'I'm not just going to let him sit there and not fight for him,' Helen Riles said.

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.

However, those inmates are all tested periodically. If they are ruled competent at any time, an execution date can be scheduled."

Is Mentally Ill Inmate Competent to be Executed?

Here's an article from The Scranton Times-Tribune regarding Pennsylvania death row inmate George Banks ("Banks' mental capacity will be at issue at hearing," August 11, 2008), who suffers from severe mental illness. A hearing will take place later this week to determine whether Banks should be declared incompetent to be executed. He was found incompetent in 2006, but the state Supreme Court overruled the judge's decision.

Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that two death row inmates with mental illness can be forcibly medicated in order to render them competent to continue their appeals and face execution.

A full timeline of the case accompanies the article, excerpted below:

"George Banks sits in his cell at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford for days at a time, alone with the fantasies and delusions that have played in his psyche since before the 1982 killing spree that left 13 people dead in Wilkes-Barre and Jenkins Township, including five of his own children.

He often remains behind, locked away in his own world, during the hourlong period each day when he and the other inmates in the prison’s death row unit are permitted to leave the solitary confinement of their cells for exercise and recreation.

Banks, 66, has lived at SCI-Graterford, a maximum-security facility in Montgomery County, about 30 miles west of Philadelphia, since 1985.

A competency hearing scheduled to begin Thursday at the prison could determine whether he dies there.

'You’ve got a man who is severely mentally ill, there’s no dispute on that,' Banks’ attorney, Luzerne County public defender Al Flora Jr., said. 'The only issue is whether he dies in prison as a result of lethal injection or whether he dies in prison as the result of a natural life.'

Banks has lived in the shadow of death since June 1983, when a jury convicted him of the murders of at least four girlfriends, his five children, ages 1 to 5, and four others, and then imposed a capital sentence.

He has survived on the strength of the appeals filed on his behalf in state and federal courts, and on the weakness of his own mental state.

Two years ago, Banks claimed God had granted him clemency and the U.S. government and the Islamic faith were conspiring against him.

In 2004, he claimed he was fighting a 'private war' with former President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern with whom Mr. Clinton had a sexual relationship.

Since his arrest in September 1982, Mr. Banks has attempted suicide at least four times and has gone on prolonged hunger strikes, including one in 2003 that caused his weight to drop more than 100 pounds.

Luzerne County Senior Judge Michael T. Conahan, who will preside over the competency hearing, must look beyond the delusions to determine Mr. Banks’ competency, Mr. Flora said.

The judge must weigh two questions: whether Mr. Banks understands he is under a sentence of death and that he will be executed, and whether he is competent to assist his attorneys in petitioning the state Board of Probation and Parole and the state Board of Pardons for clemency.

Judge Conahan ruled Mr. Banks incompetent on both criteria in February 2006, but that determination was overturned on appeal by the state Supreme Court because the judge had prevented a prosecution psychiatrist, Timothy J. Michals, from testifying.

'It is in my opinion that although Mr. Banks has a psychotic disorder, he has sufficient mental capacity to understand that he has been tried, convicted and sentenced to death as a result of the death of 13 people,' Mr. Michals said in a September 2005 report.

Mr. Michals said Mr. Banks had told him the conviction and death sentence, 'had been vacated by God and his continued incarceration and execution was the result of a wide-range conspiracy between the correctional officers, prosecutors and other government officials.'

Psychiatrists deemed Mr. Banks competent to stand trial in 1983.

Mr. Flora, using an insanity defense, described Mr. Banks at the time as 'delusional' and 'psychotic,' and suggested the 'torment and agony' of a childhood in an interracial home, coupled with living in a racist environment, had led 'to the destruction of George Banks.'

'Competency to be tried is different than competency to be executed,' Mr. Flora said last week. 'You can go through a whole round of appeals on his competency to be executed and you could come back four years later and his condition could have deteriorated.'

If Judge Conahan rules Mr. Banks competent to be executed, Mr. Flora said he could challenge the decision in the state Supreme Court and, if unsuccessful, take the case to the federal court system.
'You would be looking at years of appeals,' Mr. Flora said.

If Judge Conahan rules Mr. Banks incompetent, the decision must be affirmed by the state Supreme Court before Mr. Banks is removed from death row. ... "

PA Death Row Inmates Can Be Forcibly Medicated

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that two death row inmates with mental illness can be forcibly medicated in order to render them competent to continue their appeals and face execution.

Texas courts have addressed this issue in the case of death row inmate Steven Staley, who has been diagnosed with severe paranoid schizophrenia and believes that he is being poisoned by medication. A state district judge ordered the state to forcibly give Staley anti-psychotic drugs. Last fall, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether this constituted cruel and unusual punishment and and took no action on the case. As far as I am aware, Staley remains in prison and on medication.

Here's the story from the Philadelphia Inquirer ("PA high court OKs forced drugging of mentally ill death-row inmates," July 23, 2008):

"Ruling in the case of Thavirak Sam, a Cambodian immigrant who killed three family members in 1989 and has been mentally incompetent for years, the court said that if Sam were left untreated, his appeal would remain in limbo indefinitely.

'Not to litigate the claims delays both justice and finality,' wrote Chief Justice Ronald Castille, who was Philadelphia district attorney when the killings occurred.

Sam's defense attorney, Jules Epstein, said he believed the rulings marked the first time in the United States that an appellate court had approved forcible medication for a death-row inmate who is not a danger to himself or others.

'The decision raises a profound question of what to do with mentally ill death-row inmates . . . who have no family or other dedicated person to speak for them,' said Epstein, a law professor at Widener University.

Deputy District Attorney Ronald E. Eisenberg said the rulings would allow appeals to proceed.

'This way, at least there will be a decision one way or another about the validity of the conviction and sentence,' he said.

The issue is important because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that convicted murderers cannot be executed if they are so mentally ill that they cannot understand why they face a death sentence and what that sentence means.

Sam, now 51, has been on death row since 1991, and prosecutors have been trying for several years to get him medicated so he can be competent enough to decide whether he wants to continue his appeal or be put to death.

At varying points over the years, Sam has imagined that the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered him freed and that a Cambodian prince had interceded on his behalf.

In another Philadelphia case, the high court also ruled that Herbert Watson, convicted in 1983 of shooting to death his estranged girlfriend, must be medicated to determine whether he wants to proceed with his appeal.

Castille wrote in that case that prosecutors were 'attempting to vindicate society's compelling interest in bringing an end to the litigation of this case, which is now well into its third decade.'

In both cases, Castille was joined by Justices Thomas Saylor, J. Michael Eakin and Seamus McCaffery. Justices Max Baer and Debra Todd dissented. ..."
***
Earlier posts on Steven Staley are available here and here.

North Carolina Inmate Found Incompetent for Execution

According to the Associated Press (and reported in the Times-News Online), a Superior Court judge has found Guy LeGrande incompetent for execution ("Judge: NC inmate too ill for execution," July 1, 2008). LeGrande has been on death row in North Carolina since 1996.

It is interesting to note that LeGrande was allowed to represent himself at trial, despite compelling evidence of his severe mental illness. The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered this issue in the case of Indiana v. Edwards and ruled that someone who is deemed competent to stand trial may not necessarily be granted the right to self representation. As with the case of Texas death row inmate Scott Panetti, who also was allowed to represent himself despite his extensive history of schizophrenia, Guy LeGrande's trial has been called "farcical."

Here's the article from the AP in full:

"A death row inmate who wore a Superman shirt and represented himself at trial is too mentally ill to be executed, a judge has ruled.

Stanly County Superior Court Judge Robert Bell ruled that Guy LeGrande, 49, was 'not competent to be executed' because he is psychotic and delusional, according to a ruling signed Friday but released Tuesday.

LeGrande was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996 for the 1993 shooting death of Ellen Munford in a murder-for-hire plot.

'The court has finally stepped in and halted a colossal miscarriage of justice, the execution of a seriously mentally ill man,' defense attorney Jay Ferguson said.

District Attorney Michael Parker, who didn't try the original case, said he hadn't received a copy of the ruling and couldn't comment. The state attorney general's office said it was reviewing the decision.

The ruling came nearly a year after the last hearing was held in LeGrande's case. LeGrande's execution is stayed until the state decides whether to appeal, and the murder conviction is not affected by the judge's decision.

The judge said LeGrande refuses to cooperate with his [current] defense attorneys, Ferguson and James Monroe, even to the point of sitting apart from them in court.

'The gross delusions stemming from Mr. LeGrande's severe mental disorder puts an awareness of a link between his crime and its punishment in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no purpose,' the judge wrote in his 10-page order.

LeGrande's defense lawyers said their client also claimed to communicate with television star Oprah Winfrey through the television. LeGrande also believed that he was getting a pardon and a financial settlement from the state.

Transcripts of the trial showed that LeGrande cursed the jury and said he would meet them in hell. At one point he told them to 'pull the damn switch and shake that groove thing.'

LeGrande had been scheduled to be executed Dec. 1, 2006, but the execution was halted to review LeGrande's mental state."
***
LeGrande will most likely remain on death row, unless the state agrees for his sentence to be commuted. In its Recommendation on the Death Penalty and Persons with Mental Disabilities, the American Bar Association states that

"If, after challenges to the validity of the conviction and death sentence have been exhausted and execution has been scheduled, a court finds that prisoner has a mental disorder or disability that significantly impairs his or her capacity to understand the nature and purpose of the punishment, or to appreciate the reason for its imposition in the prisoner's own case, the sentence of death should be reduced to the sentence imposed in capital cases when execution is not option." [Italics added]
***
Read more about Guy LeGrande on The Progressive Pulse, a blog sponsored by NC Policy Watch.

Additional coverage is available from the News & Observer.

More on Scott Panetti

From the Houston Chronicle ("Austin judge finds inmate sane enough for execution; More appeals are likely in the landmark case," June 17, 2008):

For 15 years, Scott Panetti has been Example No. 1 of the problems that result when mental illness crosses paths with the criminal justice system.

They were evident at his capital murder trial, when he represented himself and dressed up in a purple cowboy suit, making a bad joke of sober proceedings when he subpoenaed JFK and Jesus Christ. And they were just as apparent years later when the state tried to execute Panetti, only to see appeals courts step in and grapple with the question of whether he was too crazy to kill.

Now an Austin federal judge has decided that Panetti, convicted by a Kerr County jury of killing his in-laws in 1992, may not be quite as sick as advertised and likely has tried to manipulate doctors assigned to investigate his mental state.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who conducted a hearing on Panetti's sanity in February, concluded that he does not deserve the protection of the courts — at least not in his current state.
"If any mentally ill person is competent to be executed for his crime, this record establishes it is Scott Panetti," Sparks concluded in his 62-page opinion.

A year ago, Panetti's lawyers were celebrating a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared Texas' standard for deciding competency for execution was so narrow as to be almost meaningless.
Expanding on its 1986 ruling in Ford v. Wainwright, which made it unlawful to execute the incompetent, the high court said a defendant had to have a "rational understanding" of why he was going to be put to death.

Panetti's lead counsel, Greg Wiercioch, all but said his death row days were numbered.

"Today the Supreme Court recognized that executing Scott Panetti would be a mindless, meaningless and miserable spectacle," Wiercioch said.

His assumption was that any court ordered to review Panetti's case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling — which required that defendants have more than just a technical understanding why they were being put to death — would see how sick he is and spare him the needle.

Malingering suspected

Sparks, however, did nothing of the sort.

While acknowledging that Panetti is seriously mentally ill, Sparks, however, seized on the opinion of three doctors hired by the state who suspected malingering and found behavior inconsistent with previous diagnoses of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

Sparks was also persuaded by tape recordings of conversations between Panetti and his parents. They indicate he had a good grasp of his legal case, and that he had adjusted his attitude and his level of cooperation with doctors depending on which side was paying them.

To Sparks, Panetti's words suggested a rational appreciation of his predicament.

"It is not seriously disputable that Panetti suffers from paranoid delusions of some type, and these delusions may well have contributed to his murder of Joe and Amanda Alvarado," Sparks wrote. "However, it is equally apparent from his recorded conversations with his parents that these delusions do not prevent him from having both a factual and rational understanding that he committed those murders, was tried and convicted, and is sentenced to die for them."

Wiercioch said Sparks essentially ignored 30 years of medical evidence and relied on a small amount of recorded conversation that did not mean anything when viewed in light of Panetti's system of delusions.

Wiercioch insists Sparks missed the point of the Supreme Court's decision: A condemned inmate's competency has to be considered in light of his broader understanding of the crime, why he committed it and why he is being punished for it.

Careful examination

In its review of the Panetti case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "rational understanding" is a difficult concept to define. It also pointed out that some offenders might be so callous, unrepentant or lacking in compassion that they might seem out of touch with reality, which does not mean they cannot be executed.

But the high court said that defendants who are seriously mentally ill need to be carefully examined to see that what they believe and understand has some connection to the truth.

"Gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put an awareness of a link between crime and its punishment in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no proper purpose," the majority opinion stated. "A prisoner's awareness of the State's rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it."

Sparks' opinion took a limited view of what that means. Panetti's illness and belief system are largely irrelevant now if he can talk reasonably about his appeals and understands he is engaged in an adversarial process that could end with his execution, the judge said.

Understanding matters

Under Sparks' interpretation, even the most bizarre delusional system would matter little — say, Panetti believing he killed his in-laws because he had been anointed by God to stop an alien invasion of Earth — because the only matter relevant for execution competency would be a rational understanding of the legal process involved in obtaining it.

"The tapes of Panetti's conversations with his parents establish that Panetti has a fairly sophisticated understanding of his case, up to and including the legal intricacies presented by Ford and the Supreme Court's remand opinion," Sparks wrote.

Sparks also wrote that Panetti's unwillingness to engage mental health experts equally regardless of which side was employing them also worked against the claim that he is too ill to understand what is going on.

"This suggests nothing more exotic than a rational understanding that Panetti's legal defense is an adversarial process and the State is on the other side," the judge stated.

The case will be appealed and ultimately could end up back with the Supreme Court for justices to determine whether Sparks followed the intent of their previous ruling.

Washington Post Editorial on Percy Walton

From June 12, 2008:

A Courageous Commutation
Mr. Kaine spares the life of a man on death row.

"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.

There is no doubt about Mr. Walton's guilt, or the brutality of his crime: In 1996, shortly after his 18th birthday, he shot three people at close range, including an elderly couple, Jessie and Elizabeth Kendrick, in the Southside city of Danville. A year later he pleaded guilty to the three murders.

The question of whether he was or remains competent to face execution has prompted the governor's scrutiny. Confronted with abundant evidence -- from the state Department of Corrections and other sources -- that Mr. Walton is mentally retarded, profoundly confused and only dimly aware of his sentence, the governor twice postponed his execution (originally set for June 2006) to allow further evaluation. Before giving the green light, Mr. Kaine wanted to be satisfied that Mr. Walton met the test laid down by the Supreme Court more than two decades ago: that the condemned man is fit for execution only if he understands that he's been sentenced to death and the reason for that sentence.

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. Kaineto permit the state to execute such a man. In commuting his sentence, Mr. Kaine recognized and applied that standard, acting with guts and decency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103440.html

Coverage of Walton Commutation

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch ("Triple murderer spared from execution by Kaine," June 10, 2008):

"Gov. Timothy M. Kaine commuted Percy Levar Walton's death sentences to life without parole yesterday, sparing the triple murderer execution by injection tonight.

Though courts have held that Walton could be executed, Kaine said he granted clemency because Walton was not mentally competent. In 2006, Kaine twice delayed Walton's execution over concerns he was mentally ill.

'Given the extended period of time over which Walton has exhibited this lack of mental competence, I must conclude that a commutation of his sentence . . . is now the only constitutionally appropriate course of action,' Kaine said in a prepared statement.

In 1996, Walton murdered Jessie Kendrick, 80, Elizabeth Kendrick, 81, and Archie D. Moore Jr., 33. All three lived near Walton in Danville. Kaine said there was no doubt Walton was guilty of the crimes, and he did not question the decision to seek the death penalty.

'The victims met a fate they did not deserve, and the families of the victims have suffered greatly from the loss of their loved ones,' Kaine said.

Learning of Kaine's decision, Irene Jurscaga, 87, of Suffolk, sister of Elizabeth Kendrick, said, 'I'm very disappointed.' Earlier yesterday, she said she hoped the clemency request would be turned down.

'He killed three people. He killed my dear sister, my brother-in-law. They were innocent people. This has been torture for us for the last 12 years,' she said. 'When he committed this crime . . . he knew what he was doing.'

Kaine said that while Walton may have been sane when he committed the murders, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution 'forbids the execution of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.'

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell said he respectfully disagrees with Kaine's decision. 'The United States Supreme Court denied Walton's petition in which he argued that he is incompetent and requested that his execution be stayed,' he said.

McDonnell said nothing prevented Walton from bringing evidence of incompetence before the courts. 'Evidence of an inmate's competency is more effectively evaluated by a judicial officer,' McDonnell said.

Kaine, who opposes capital punishment, has let five executions proceed. This was the first time he commuted a death sentence. Governors L. Douglas Wilder, George Allen, Jim Gilmore and Mark R. Warner commuted a total of seven death sentences since executions were allowed to resume in 1976.

Experts have differed on Walton's condition over the years.

In June 2006, Kaine said Walton's clemency petition presented information that Walton had schizophrenia and that his mental state had deteriorated since 2003, the most recent information the courts had to consider at the time in 2006.

'I was compelled to conclude [in 2006] that Walton was seriously mentally impaired and that he met the Supreme Court's definition of mental incompetence,' he said.

Since then, Kaine said, there has been no improvement. 'One cannot reasonably conclude that Walton is fully aware of the punishment he is about to suffer and why he is to suffer it,' Kaine said.

Nash Bilisoly, one of Walton's lawyers, said, 'I think the governor acted appropriately and compassionately in granting the clemency request.'

He said he asked prison authorities to notify Walton, who on Thursday was moved from death row to the Greensville Correctional Center, where executions are conducted.

The news, Bilisoly said, 'won't make any difference to him. He will not know.'

Gov. Kaine Grants Clemency to Percy Walton

After years of wrangling in the courts regarding Percy Levar Walton's competency to be executed, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has decided to grant clemency to Walton and commute his sentence to life without the possibility of parole.

Here is the Governor's statement in full:

"I have carefully considered over the past 24 months the question of whether the Commonwealth can carry out the execution of Percy Levar Walton in a constitutionally permissible manner.

"There is no doubt that Walton killed three innocent people over a two-week period in November 1996. The victims met a fate they did not deserve and the families of the victims have suffered greatly from the loss of their loved ones. I have no reason to question the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty or the judge's decision that death was an appropriate sentence.

"The courts have emphasized, however, that it is unconstitutional to execute a person who is mentally incompetent. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote in the seminal case of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 'forbids the execution of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.' He further concluded that the execution of a mentally incompetent inmate would be a 'uniquely cruel penalty' where the inmate could not comprehend that they are about to die and could not 'prepare, mentally and spiritually' for the execution.

"Thus, the question of Walton's mental status is of the utmost importance in assessing whether the Commonwealth may carry out his death sentence. For this reason, the court system has wrestled with the question of whether Walton's mental capacity imposes a bar to his execution. Notwithstanding consistent decisions upholding his conviction, the courts found it necessary to carefully examine whether Walton's death sentence could be carried out consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

"In this regard, a few days before Walton's initial scheduled execution date of May 28, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted Walton a stay of execution in order to determine Walton's mental competence. In July 2003, following extensive submission of evidence about Walton's mental state from 1997 through 2003, the court ruled that he was competent to be executed. A three-judge panel of appellate judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court ruling, directing a broader inquiry into Walton's mental state. Before that inquiry took place, the entire court reconsidered the panel's decision in an en banc review. The en banc court found Walton competent to be executed by a narrow 7-6 majority.

"In issuing its ruling, the Fourth Circuit properly limited its consideration to psychiatric evaluations and other evidence pertaining to Walton's mental state during the period from 1997 to 2003. By the time I first reviewed this matter, shortly before Walton's scheduled execution in June 2006, three years had passed since the evidence on his mental competence was presented to the court.

"I noted at that time that Walton's clemency petition presented significant evidence that Walton had schizophrenia, that such a mental illness can cause serious deterioration of mental competence, and that Walton's mental state had deteriorated since 2003 such that there was more than a minimal chance that Walton no longer knew why he was to be executed or was even aware of the final punishment he was about to receive. Due to the history of judicial concern about his mental status, I determined that it was important to have current and independent information about Walton's mental condition in order to comply with the law forbidding execution of a mentally incompetent person. Accordingly, I delayed Walton's June 2006 execution date until December 8, 2006, for the purpose of conducting an independent evaluation of his mental condition and competence.

"During that six-month period, I was provided with current and independent information pertaining to Walton's mental state from a number of sources including a thorough review of records maintained by the Department of Corrections, updated evaluations by psychiatrists, and information provided by persons who had interacted with Walton on a regular basis over a period of years.

"After reviewing the information, I was compelled to conclude that Walton was seriously mentally impaired and that he met the Supreme Court's definition of mental incompetence. Because one could not reasonably conclude that Walton was fully aware of the punishment he was about to suffer and why he was to suffer it, I decided that his execution could not proceed at that time.

"At the same time, it was within the realm of possibility - though unlikely - that Walton's mental impairment was not permanent. As a result, I concluded that a commutation of his sentence was not then appropriate. Rather, continued observation of Walton's condition over a more extended period of time was the appropriate course of action. Accordingly, I delayed his execution date by an additional 18 months, to June 10, 2008.

"Over the course of those 18 months, there has been no discernible improvement in Walton's condition and no evidence that his mental impairment is temporary. Walton differs in fundamental ways from other death row offenders. He lives in a self-imposed state of isolation that includes virtually no interest in receiving or understanding information. Walton communicates only infrequently, almost invariably in response to direct questions, and those responses are minimal in nature. He has nothing in his cell other than a mattress, a pillow and a blanket. He shows no interest in contact with the outside world and has no television, radio, magazines, books or stationery. He has no personal effects of any kind. This minimal existence has been in evidence for the past five years.

"In light of this information, I am again compelled to find that one cannot reasonably conclude that Walton is fully aware of the punishment he is about to suffer and why he is to suffer it.

"Given the extended period of time over which Walton has exhibited this lack of mental competence, I must conclude that a commutation of his sentence to life in prison without possibility of parole is now the only constitutionally appropriate course of action.

"Although Walton's mental incompetence alone precludes carrying out an execution that would violate the Constitution, there are other factors that I have considered in granting limited clemency. Since Walton's conviction and sentencing, separate Supreme Court decisions have placed limitations on executions that very nearly fit Walton's circumstances.

"The Court has ruled that the Constitution forbids executing an individual who: commits a capital crime under the age of 18 years old; was insane at the time of the capital crime; or is mentally retarded due to intellectual disabilities evidenced before the age of 18.

"In this instance, Walton committed these murders less than two months past his 18th birthday. While he was not insane at the time of his crimes, there are strong indications that his mental illness started prior to the murders. While he scored a 66 on his most recent IQ test, which is below a standard for mental retardation (70 on an IQ test) set by the Supreme Court of Virginia, he appears to have fallen below that standard for mental retardation only after he turned 18 while the relevant legal standard in the Commonwealth requires that retardation be in evidence prior to that age.

"While no one of these additional factors would justify clemency for Walton standing alone, it is appropriate to employ the sound legal practice of considering and weighing the totality of the facts in determining whether to grant limited clemency to Walton.

"In light of the foregoing conclusions and in accordance with the powers granted to me as Governor under Article V, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia, I have granted Walton a commutation of his three death sentences to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole."

"In reaching this decision, I remain mindful of the terrible injustice that Walton perpetrated against Jessie E. Kendrick, Elizabeth W. Kendrick, and Archie D. Moore, Jr. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of these honorable people."
***
More information on Percy Walton is available here.
***
The American Bar Association's Recommendation on the Death Penalty and Persons with Mental Disabilities states that "If, after challenges to the validity of the conviction and death sentence have been exhausted and execution has been scheduled, a court finds that a prisoner has a mental disorder or disability that significantly impairs his or her capacity to understand the nature and purpose of the punishment, or to appreciate the reason for its imposition in the prisoner's own case, the sentence of death should be reduced to the sentence imposed in capital cases when execution is not an option."

The Fredericksburg Standard on Scott Panetti

The following article appeared yesterday in the Fredericksburg Standard ("U.S. District Court Judge Rules Panetti Competent," May 28, 2008).

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.

Curry explained that, in making his recent decision, Judge Sparks had utilized new standards set out by the U.S. Supreme Court almost a year ago when Panetti's appeal was reversed.

The latest determination in Austin follows a June 28, 2007, ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that temporarily blocked Panetti's execution.

At that time, the high court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the case must be sent back to Austin for Judge Sparks to determine if Panetti's delusions make him mentally incompetent to be executed.

In the meantime, Panetti has remained on death row.

In the court's 2007 majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that it is not enough for inmates to understand that they are to be executed -- as had been the standard developed by the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals.

Instead, Kennedy said that a U.S. Constitution restriction against cruel and unusual punishment -- established in a 1986 court holding -- demands that inmates also understand why they are to be executed.

(Editor's Note: The Court actually addressed the difference between mere "awareness" of the impending execution and the reason for it - the previous standard it had set forth in its Ford v. Wainwright decision - and a "rational understanding" of that execution. Judge Sparks was charged with determining whether Panetti possesses a rational understanding of the reason for his execution, though the Supreme Court did not necessarily provide any guidance as to what that understanding should look like.)

Panetti, who was treated over the years for schizophrenia and paranoid delusions, has claimed that he was sentenced for execution because satanic forces want him silenced from preaching the Gospel -- not as punishment for the shooting deaths of Fredericksburg residents Joe and Amanda Alvarado on the morning of Sept. 8, 1992, while his estranged wife and their toddler daughter watched.

In its 2007 ruling, the Supreme Court said that Panetti was improperly denied the chance to prove he is mentally unfit for execution.

But, in ordering the district court to reassess Panetti's competence, the court declined to provide a precise standard for assessing his claims, leaving that job up to the lower courts.

Last year's high court decision followed a lengthy legal process that had begun almost 12 years earlier.

In a 1995 capital murder trial at Kerrville where he acted as his own attorney, Panetti dressed up in cowboy attire, claiming that he had other personalities and even subpoenaing the late President John F. Kennedy and God.

However, the jury rejected his insanity defense and sentenced him to death.

Panetti had been scheduled to die by lethal injection on Feb. 5, 2004, but a stay of execution was issued the day before by U.S. District Judge Sparks for the Western District of Texas, pending an examination to determine if he was competent to be executed.

Subsequently, Judge Sparks ruled in October of 2004 in Austin that Panetti was sane enough to be executed but that he could not be put to death until the next tier of federal courts -- the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals -- addressed the former Fredericksburg resident's challenge.

The 5th Circuit Court's three-judge panel then ruled in May of 2006 that Panetti was sane enough to receive the death sentence.

In that ruling, the panel -- which interprets law for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi -- said that mentally ill convicts can be executed as long as they have a basic understanding of their punishment.
That decision maintained that Panetti did not need to believe he was being executed for the murders of his estranged wife's parents.

Previously, state and federal appeals courts had found nothing wrong with Panetti's trial, and the U.S. Supreme Court had declined to hear his appeal.

In addition, the Texas Attorney General's Office had determined that Panetti was competent enough to be executed, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles also voted, 15-1, against a reprieve.

Numerous appeals to have Panetti's death sentence commuted to life imprisonment have also failed.
***
In his ruling, Judge Sparks ordered a stay of execution for Scott Panetti pending the outcome of his appeals.

Execution Date Set for Percy Walton

The Commonwealth of Virginia has set an execution date of June 10, 2008 for Percy Levar Walton, a severely mentally ill man who believes that he will come back to life after the execution and whose intellectual functioning appears to be significantly impaired. In order to be deemed competent to be executed, an inmate must understand the reality of - and the reason for - his or her punishment.

Walton faced imminent execution in April 2006, but received a six-month reprieve from Virginia Governor Tim Kaine just hours before it was set to take place. Gov. Kaine ordered and authorized an independent and nonjudicial examination of Walton’s mental state. On December 4, 2006, Gov. Kaine ordered a second reprieve - this time for 18 months, until June 10, 2008. "I am compelled to conclude that Walton is severely mentally impaired and meets the Supreme Court's definition of mental incompetence," Kaine said in a statement. "At the same time, it is within the realm of possibility -- though unlikely -- that Walton's mental impairment is not permanent. Accordingly, a commutation of his sentence is not appropriate at this time.”

There are no indications that Percy Levar Walton's mental status has changed in the last two years.

Here are excerpts from Amnesty International's Urgent Action:

"In 1999, three mental health experts concluded that Levar Walton suffers from severe schizophrenia and was probably suffering from this mental illness at the time of the crime. Walton, who was 18 years and one month old at the time of the murders, had displayed signs of emerging mental illness since the age of 16. He manifested bizarre beliefs and inappropriate behavior after his arrest, in pre-trial custody, and during the trial. In telephone calls from the jail to his family, he insisted that his mother was his sister, and referred to his father as his brother, his grandfather as his father and his grandmother as his mother. He said that he had discovered that he had two brothers, when he had none. He told his mother that he was the Queen Bee, and his grandmother that he was Superman. He told relatives that he was Jesus Christ, and that he was a millionaire. He insisted that he would come back to life as soon as he was executed, and that he would retrieve and bring back alive his grandfather who had recently died. In a 1999 affidavit, his lawyer recalled how Levar Walton 'did not meaningfully assist us in preparing a defense - Often times it was extremely difficult to communicate with Mr. Walton, and there were occasions where we could not tell whether he understood what we were saying to him. Other times it was clear from Mr. Walton's questions and responses to my questions that Mr. Walton understood little of what I was telling him.' The lawyer recalled that 'we were unable to convince Mr. Walton that he would not come back to life' if he was executed.

The defense asked for a mental health expert, and the trial judge appointed a psychologist. After a series of meetings with Levar Walton, the psychologist developed serious doubts about his competence to stand trial, finding that Walton's articulation of his thoughts was incomprehensible. He was particularly troubled by Levar Walton's notion that execution did not result in permanent death. The psychologist recommended that Walton be placed in a secure psychiatric hospital. This was rejected by the trial judge.

At first Levar Walton said that he wanted to plead guilty. Then in September 1997 he told his lawyer that he wanted to plead not guilty and have a jury trial because he was innocent. Days later, he reverted to admitting guilt. At end of that month, asked whether he would plead guilty or not guilty, he refused to speak, but responded by writing the word 'chair' on a piece of paper. He told his lawyer that he wanted to be executed in order 'to come back to life so he could be with his honeys.' In court in October 1997, he pleaded guilty to the murders, the judge accepted the plea and, after a sentencing phase at which no mental health evidence was presented, sentenced him to death. At the sentencing trial, Walton's conduct was extremely prejudicial. He repeatedly burst out laughing and smiled inappropriately. The prosecutor argued that Walton's outbursts indicated a 'sadistic, ruthless, cold-blooded murderer who has no conscience, no remorse and no right to live in a civilized society.'

Levar Walton's mental illness has worsened on death row - prison records have described an inmate who is 'floridly psychotic.' In a March 2006 ruling on his case, six judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted the 'substantial evidence that Percy Levar Walton does not understand that his execution will mean his death, defined as the end of his physical life.' They further noted that 'there is no dispute that since his sentencing, Walton has fallen deeper and deeper into mental illness.' According to Levar Walton's current lawyer, who has visited him regularly, Walton is unable to care for himself, such as in matters of basic personal hygiene. She has no doubt that he is severely mentally impaired.

There is evidence that in addition to his mental illness, Levar Walton functions, at best, at borderline mental retardation level and has the mental age of a young child. If the crimes for which he was sentenced to death had been committed five weeks earlier, Levar Walton would have been 17 years old and his execution would be illegal under U.S. and international law."
***
Percy Walton was sentenced to death in 1997 for the murders of an elderly white couple, Elizabeth and Jesse Hendrick, aged 81 and 80, and a 33-year-old black man, Archie Moore, in the town of Danville in November 1996. According to Viriginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, Walton’s prison cell is devoid of any personal affects, except for a large pile of salt, pepper and sugar packets; he has no form of entertainment nor does he seek any. He makes no phone calls; he recives no visits from family or friends. Prison guards refer to Walton as “Horse”, short for “Crazy Horse.”

For more information, visit http://www.vadp.org/cases/walton.htm.

More on Panetti Ruling

In his order denying Scott Panetti's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Judge Sparks further ordered that Panetti's execution shall be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in this case.

Here's more on the ruling from The Austin Chronicle ("Panetti Sane Enough to Die," April 4, 2008):

"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.'

Panetti's case will now be forwarded to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court for Appeals for review."

Scott Panetti Deemed Competent to Be Executed

AFP reports that Judge Sam Sparks once again has found Scott Panetti competent to be executed ("Schizophrenic death row man in Texas on path to execution," March 27, 2008). The judge ruled that Panetti possessed sufficient rational understanding of the reason for his execution. Panetti believes that the state seeks his execution in order to prevent him from preaching the gospel in prison.

Here's the article:


"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 U.S. 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.

In September 1992, Panetti, who had previously been hospitalized for serious schizophrenic problems, murdered his parents in-law.

A judge ruled that he was competent to stand trial, and he was allowed to represent himself in the case.

Dressed as a cowboy, in his trial Panetti called on Jesus Christ, the late U.S. president John F. Kennedy and the late Pope John Paul II as witnesses. His statements were laced with delirious and incomprehensible monologues."

More on Panetti Competency Hearing

Here are excerpts from an article by Jordan Smith that appeared in the Austin Chronicle ("Legal Battle Over When Prisoner Is Sane Enough for Execution Bounces Back Here," February 15, 2008), regarding last week's hearing on Scott Panetti's competency to be executed:

"The long, sad case of Texas death row inmate Scott Panetti landed back in federal district court last week, where Judge Sam Sparks is tasked with deciding whether Panetti is indeed sane enough to be executed. According to the state, Panetti is quite likely a malingerer who is clearly able to understand the connection between his crime and punishment and, Assistant Attorney General Tina Miranda argued in court on Feb. 6, Panetti's strong religious beliefs clearly evidence this fact: He believes forgiveness for his crime is integral to his salvation – that underlying connection between right and wrong is solid proof Panetti can comprehend his fate, Miranda argued. But Panetti's defenders, including Austin appellate attorney Keith Hampton, argue an ability to understand is not the same as actual comprehension. Panetti's hyperreligiosity is not anchored in any objective reality, they argue. Indeed, Panetti has long claimed the real motive for executing him is to stop him from preaching "the gospel of the Lord King." At stake is not only Panetti's life but also the evolution of a legal standard that could be applied in othercases where a prisoner's competence to face execution is at issue. ..."

and

"...the Supremes [U.S. Supreme Court] punted the case back to the Austin courtroom of Sparks, giving him the daunting task of wading through the legal morass of the Panetti case in order to divine whether he is sane enough to die – a decision that will become the first step in devising a standard for judging mental eligibility for execution that would ultimately be applied to other similarly situated inmates. (As such, it is inevitable the case will again be appealed, meaning that whatever test Sparks applies in his ruling will have to pass legal muster all the way back up the legal food chain to the high court.)

To Rusk State Hospital psychiatrist David Self, there is no doubt Panetti is too deluded to be considered competent: After evaluating Panetti in November, Self concluded Panetti is 'delusionally preoccupied with religious themes,' which he said is a 'very frequent manifestation' of schizophrenia. Moreover, he found nothing to suggest Panetti is faking his illness – if anything, he said, Panetti at times seemed to be 'faking good,' by trying to present himself as more rational than he actually is. However, Panetti does not comprehend the real reason for his execution, said Self, as he believes he's a player in a spiritual war being fought between the forces of good and evil. Self said Panetti told him that in this fight, the state of Texas has been deluded by the devil: Although the state has come to believe it seeks his execution as punishment for his crime, Panetti believes the state has become a pawn in the devil's game to silence his preaching.

Under questioning by Assistant AG Miranda, Self testified he believes Panetti is incapable of 'a rational understanding' of why he is to be executed. But, Miranda pointed out, Panetti comprehends the cause-and-effect nature of his circumstance and the concept of good and evil –indeed, the notion there is a 'war' between good and evil is not unusual and would not on its face be considered delusional, she noted. 'Is believing in spiritual warfare a fixed false belief?' Miranda asked Self.

'Not by itself,' Self replied. 'No.'"

Read the full article.

Competency Hearing for Scott Panetti

Last week Federal District Judge Sam Sparks presided over a hearing to determine whether Scott Panetti is competent to be executed. In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Panetti's execution, ruling that the Fifth Circuit Court of Criminal Appeals had used "an improperly restrictive test" in determining Panetti's competency. The Court also found that Panetti had not received a full and comprehensive competency hearing.

Here are excerpts from an article about the hearing that appeared in the Austin American-Statesman ("Judge must decide whether death row inmate's delusions prevent his execution," February 5, 2007):

"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 aprecise 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. ..."

Read the full article.

Earlier coverage of the Panetti case is available here and here.

"60 Minutes" Segment on Mentally Ill Inmate in Tennessee

Last night, the CBS News program "60 Minutes" featured an interview with Gregory Thompson, a severely mentally ill man who has been on death row in Tennessee for more than 20 years. His lawyers did not raise evidence of his mental illness during his trial. Thompson had an execution date in 2006, but a federal appeals court ruled that a lower court should examine evidence that Thompson was mentally ill at the time of the crime. Later, the Supreme Court narrowly overruled the decision, saying it was too late to raise that issue.

According to CBS, "Thompson's lawyers are going back to federal court this month and hope to get a ruling that Thompson -- despite his medication -- is mentally incompetent and should not be executed. The Tennessee attorney general, who declined 60 Minutes' request for an interview, is expected to argue that Thompson understands why he is being punished, is not insane and,therefore, should be executed."

Here's more from CBS News:

"Thompson voluntarily takes a cocktail of 10 pills daily, plus two injections a month, and says he would "go lulu" without them. Episodes off the medications include attempting to kill guards he says appeared to be insects and aliens. But even on the medicine, he is delusional, says one of his lawyers, Dana Chavis. '[Medicine] doesn't take away his mental illness. He's always insane... but it hides that insanity,' says Chavis.

[Reporter Laura] Logan spoke with him in prison while he was on his medication, asking him if he's aware the medication increases his chances of being executed. "I made a choice years ago that if I were to get to that point, I'd rather be normal than insane," he says, "because it hurts. I'm tired of being mentally ill ...so if they want to kill me at the end, then they kill me at the end." Asked what would happen if he is executed, Thompson replies, "Well, I know that the dead can speak."
When asked if he would die, Thompson says, "I think it would be a horrible ending, because if the dead can speak ... you got thoughts going on in the grave. I don't know about that," he tells Logan.

Thompson also claims he received a check for $444,000 for writing songs for country western stars and gave it to his victim's family."

Video footage is available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/09/60minutes/main3481145.shtml