"Crazy but Sane"

That's how Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Cathy Cochran has described Texas death row inmate Andre Thomas, who made national headlines last year after he reportedly plucked out his remaining eye and ate it (Thomas had plucked out his other eye while awaiting his capital murder trial). "Sanity" is a legal term that refers to mental status at the time of the crime; a defendant who knows the difference between right and wrong is deemed "sane."

Today the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Thomas' appeals, even though it recognized him as clearly mentally ill. Interestingly, Judge Cochran noted that the deaths for which Thomas was sent to death row could have been avoided because Thomas twice went to hospitals for help but
left voluntarily and couldn't be committed against his will.

Here is the full article from the Associated Press ("Texas Judge: Eye-Plucking Inmate 'Crazy' but Sane," March 18, 2009):

A condemned Texas inmate who removed his only eye and ate it in a bizarre outburst several months ago on death row is ''crazy,'' yet sane under state law, a judge wrote in an appellate court ruling Wednesday that rejected his appeals.

Andre Thomas raised 44 claims in his petition to the state's highest criminal court, challenging his conviction and death sentence for the murder of his estranged wife's 13-month-old daughter five years ago in Grayson County in North Texas.

His wife and their 4-year-old son were killed in the same attack. The victims were stabbed and their hearts were ripped out. Thomas, 26, of Texoma, walked into the Sherman Police Department, admitted to the killings and said God told him to commit them.

The nine-member Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously upheld Thomas' conviction and punishment.

Thomas ''is clearly 'crazy,' but he is also 'sane' under Texas law,'' Judge Cathy Cochran wrote in a 14-page statement accompanying the court's brief order.

Among claims in the appeal, Thomas' attorneys argued that instructions to his trial jury were incorrect regarding the law on voluntary intoxication, that the instruction should not have been given because it suggested his drug and alcohol use and not insanity were responsible for his actions, and that his trial attorneys were ineffective because they should have known the instructions were improper.

At Thomas' trial in Sherman in 2005, defense lawyers said the killings were the result of insane delusions caused solely by Thomas' mental disease. Jurors agreed with prosecutors, who argued his psychosis was caused or aggravated by his voluntary use of alcohol, drugs and prescription drugs.

''There was ample evidence to reject an insanity defense and support a jury finding that (Thomas) knew that his conduct was wrong at the time he murdered his wife and the children,'' Cochran wrote. ''There was also evidence that (Thomas) did not know his conduct was wrong at the time. This was a
quintessential fact issue for the jury to decide, and it did so.''

Cochran wrote that although ''reasonable people might well differ on the questions of whether (Thomas) was sane at the time he committed these murders or competent at the time he was tried, those issues were appropriately addressed by the defense, the prosecution, trial judge, and the jury during
the trial.''

While in the Grayson County Jail five days after his arrest, Thomas plucked out his right eye. A judge subsequently ruled he was competent to stand trial.

Last December, a death row officer at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice found Thomas in his cell with blood on his face and had him taken to the unit infirmary. Thomas told officials he had pulled out his remaining eye and ate it.

He was taken to a hospital for treatment, then was transferred to a prison psychiatric unit.

There was no reference to the second eye removal in the court opinion.

Thomas was convicted of killing 13-month-old Leyha Marie Hughes. Also slain March 27, 2004, were his wife, Laura Christine Boren, 20, and their son, 4-year-old Andre Lee.

''This is an extraordinarily tragic case,'' Cochran wrote, saying the deaths could have been avoided because Thomas twice went to hospitals for help but left voluntarily and couldn't be held without legal authority.
***
The Per Curiam order is at:
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=18129
Judge Cochran's concurring opinion is at:
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=18123

(Thanks to Steve Hall for providing the links.)
***
More information about Andre Thomas is available here , here , and here.

Tennessee Convict may be Re-evaluated for Competency

According to The Tennessean, Paul Dennis Reid may have his competency re-evaluated. Additionally, a petition has been filed with the Davidson County Criminal Court alleging that Reid had ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for the murder of two restaurant workers. ("Lawyer says Reid is delusional", March 17, 2009). Here is the full article:

The attorney representing convicted killer Paul Dennis Reid is convinced the death row inmate is delusional.

During a post-conviction hearing in Davidson County Criminal Court, attorney Kelly Gleason asked that Reid's mental competency be re-evaluated.

"He thinks he's getting out of jail on June 1," Gleason said. "He thinks I'm an actress, not an attorney, and he's requested that I take him shopping at the Oak Ridge Mall for clothes, shoes and other hygiene products he might need once he gets out."

Reid was convicted of killing seven people at fast-food restaurants in Nashville and Clarksville in 1997.

Gleason, an assistant post-conviction defender, has represented Reid since August 2004 and maintains that he has never been competent.

"He was found in federal court to be incompetent," she said. "The state is choosing to ignore it."

But Davidson County Deputy District Attorney Tom Thurman argued that Reid had been evaluated numerous times and was found competent. The most recent competency hearing was held in May 2008. At the time, Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Cheryl Blackburn ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to show Reid was incompetent and that he should decide the course of his appeals.

In the courtroom Monday, both the defense and the prosecution declined to call witnesses for the post-conviction hearing, which centered on a petition filed by Reid in April 2003. In the case of the deaths of two workers at a Captain D's restaurant in Donelson, the petition argues that Reid had ineffective assistance of counsel.

Reid claimed to believe that he was under surveillance by secret government agencies and that his trial lawyers should have found the tapes that would prove his innocence.

He also claimed that his trial was not fair because the judge, the jury and all of the witnesses were scripted by the government to cause his death, the petition said.

Judge To Issue Ruling

Blackburn is expected to issue a written judgment in the Captain D's post-conviction petition within the next few months.

Gleason says if the petition is dismissed, she will appeal the decision.

Reid, dressed in a white Tennessee Department of Correction uniform and shackled at the wrists and ankles, sat quietly during the hearing. When it was over, Reid smiled and waved to several people before leaving the courtroom.

Since his conviction, Reid's execution has been stayed several times, most recently in 2006 when a federal judge intervened. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to lift the stay.

He is facing seven death sentences for killing seven people and injuring another in a 1997 crime spree in Middle Tennessee. He killed three people at a Nashville McDonald's, two at the Captain D's in Donelson and two store clerks at a Baskin-Robbins in Clarksville.

TX Death Sentence Overturned

According to The Daily News, Texas death row inmate Gaylon George Walbey has received a new sentencing hearing from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ("Death-row inmate could get new hearing," March 15, 2009). Here's the full article:

A convicted killer sentenced to die for the 1993 slaying of a college teacher will soon return to Galveston, where attorneys will decide whether to seek a new punishment hearing or permanently remove him from death row.

After 12 years lobbying the courts for his client Gaylon George Walbey Jr., defense attorney Brian Wice won a new punishment hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Meanwhile, the National Alliance on Mental Illness continues to lobby against states imposing death-sentences in cases against the mentally ill, a situation that is not unique to Texas, said Ron Honberg, the organization’s legal director.

Walbey, 34, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia as a child, repeatedly bludgeoned Marionette Beyah — his former foster mother and a Galveston College teacher — inside her island home May 4, 1993, authorities said.

No Supreme Court Review

With the assent of the state’s Office of Solicitor General and Galveston County Criminal District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott decided not to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s decision, said Thomas Kelley, a spokesman for Abbott.

Wice declined to discuss his negotiations with Sistrunk, but said Walbey, who is no longer under a death sentence, would likely return to Galveston soon where a decision on whether to impose a life sentence or hold a new punishment hearing would be forthcoming.

Roger Ezell — who now works for Sistrunk — failed to investigate “a cornucopia of mitigating circumstances about (Walbey’s) horrific upbringing and background that would have led at least one juror to reject a death sentence,” Wice said.

Prosecutors gave Ezell, who defended Walbey, a mass of mitigating material, such as medical records and records from juvenile court, school, child services and health and human services, Wice said.

The records “painted a portrait of Gaylon’s upbringing and background that even the conservative Fifth Circuit described as ‘nightmarish,’” Wice said.

Ezell said a federal judge and lower appellate court upheld the death sentence, but a state district court and federal magistrate ruled in Wice’s favor, ultimately leading to the higher appeals court’s ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has with previous death-penalty cases raised the question whether mentally ill defendants understand the nature of the death penalty enforced upon them, Honberg said.

Scott Louis Panetti was convicted of capital murder in Texas in the 1992 death of his in-laws, but the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a temporary halt to Panetti’s death sentence and remanded the case for further consideration, saying Panetti was sentenced to die despite a well-documented history of mental illness. Panetti remains on Texas’ death row.

‘Not Unique To Texas’

Panetti represented himself and subpoenaed for his trial Jesus, former President John F. Kennedy and Pope John Paul II, Honberg said.

“This is not unique to Texas,” Honberg said. “We’ve followed cases in Virginia, Georgia, Indiana and other states as well. There are four states, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana and Kentucky, that have legislation pending or are considering legislation to reduce the application of the death penalty where serious mental illness is involved.”

Brain disorders have a profound impact on a person’s comprehension of reality, Honberg said.

Walbey was diagnosed with schizophrenia at a very young age, although it doesn’t appear that he suffers from it now, Wice said.

Beyah’s Death Remembered

Sistrunk, who tried the case and argued for the death penalty, said he remembered the circumstances surrounding Beyah’s death as if it were yesterday. These cases stay with you, and your victims stay with you, too, Sistrunk said.

“I still remember arguing to the jury how Ms. Beyah was repeatedly beat over the head by the defendant with a fire extinguisher, and that not having killed her, she was then stabbed repeatedly with multiple knives,” Sistrunk said.

One of the knives broke off in Beyah’s back, Sistrunk said.

“The defendant then tried to cut her throat, and that not having killed her, the defendant began choking her with an electrical cord,” Sistrunk said. “Finally he just left her there on the floor of her home, breathing her last breath, as he stepped over her and dug in her purse for her car keys.”

Decision By August

The decision on whether to seek a new punishment hearing for Walbey or to impose a life sentence must be made by mid-August, Sistrunk said.

“We’ve begun our review of the evidence from the first trial and are still awaiting evidence that was offered by defendant’s counsel during the appellate process,” Sistrunk said. “We’ve also contacted the family of Ms. Beyah to begin some discussions on our options at this point.”

Sistrunk could remember only one Galveston County case, that of Santiago Varelas, where a death sentenced was reversed. The case was retried in 2002, and the decision was made not to pursue the death penalty. Varelas was found guilty again and sentenced to life in prison, Sistrunk said.

“Having been personally involved in it and remembering it all, the temptation is to make a quick decision to seek death,” Sistrunk said of Walbey’s case. “But there is no substitute for reviewing everything that is available to us now, and that is what we will be doing over the next few months.”

Update on Paul Devoe

According to the Austin American-Statesman, capital murder defendant Paul Devoe has been found competent to stand trial:

"A staff psychiatrist at North Texas State Hospital on Feb. 24 declared Paul Devoe competent to stand trial.

Devoe is accused of shooting to death a man at a Marble Falls bar, four people in a Jonestown house and a woman in Pennsylvania in August 2007 before being arrested in New York.

He has been indicted on capital murder charges in Travis County in the Jonestown deaths of an ex-girlfriend’s daughter, Haylie Faulkner, 15 and Haylie’s friend Danielle Hensley, 17. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Two doctors, one hired by the prosecution and another by the defense, declared Devoe incompetent to stand trial in December. Judge Brenda Kennedy sealed Devoe’s mental health reports, saying that their public disclosure would violate Devoe’s right to due process and a fair trial."

The article is available here.

See earlier posts about Devoe here and here.

Op-Ed: Prohibit the Death Penalty for Offenders with Mental Illness

Here's an op-ed that appeared in the The News-Sentinel (Fort Wayne, Indiana), from Kathleen Bayes. Bayes is the executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness-Fort Wayne.

Indiana should pass bill to prevent death penalty for severely mentally
ill

Thank You, Fort Wayne News-Sentinel editorial staff for your continued strong objection to reinstating the death sentence for Joseph Corcoran. Your editorial on Jan. 5 inspired me to continue the fight.

Please, please, Gov. Daniels, choose to commute the death sentence of Corcoran to life in prison without parole. End this pathetic injustice and enormous waste of money.

Order the Indiana attorney general's office to forgo any further appeals. Surely, they have more useful, productive ways to spend their time and money.

In the official study of the death penalty in Indiana, commissioned by Gov. O'Bannon and published in 2002, the costs to the county and state for an average death-penalty trial through all appeals totaled $568,836. That total did not include the cost of the defense in federal court and in clemency proceedings, all of which are paid by the federal courts and are substantial. The death penalty and its enormous cost should be reserved for the worst of the worst, if it continues to exist in Indiana at all.

Words cannot express Fort Wayne National Alliance on Mental Illness members' disappointment that the U.S. Court of Appeals has permitted Indiana to choose to reinstate the death penalty for Corcoran once again.

Corcoran is extremely mentally ill. This truth is no longer in question.

Corcoran is absolutely consumed with the brain illness, paranoid schizophrenia. Absolutely no one denies this truth after his 10 years in prison. Three experts say his mental illness is so severe that he is incompetent to make rational decisions. The state did not contradict this expert testimony. Corcoran's pattern of behavior over the last 10 years verifies this truth. One of the three appeals court judges, Judge Ann Claire Williams, agreed that Corcoran was mentally incompetent to waive
his right to having the trial court review his case.

This man is so ill with schizophrenia that all he wants to do is die. His profound schizophrenia prevented him from cooperating with his defense when he was first tried and convicted. His current defense attorney told me that no one wanted to take his case because he is so uncooperative in
his delusions. He just wants people to help him die, signing waiver after waiver of his appeals rights.

Putting Corcoran to death serves no moral purpose. Killing him will not deter future criminal activity driven by mental illness.

There is no logic, no rationale, no plan, nothing gained when a severely mentally ill person is overcome by the voices in his head and commits a capital crime. It is not an act of conscious will or choice. There is no way to deter total irrationality by punishment. Deterrence comes only from
treatment. Members of NAMI who live with mental illness will often tell us about irrational, regrettable behavior that resulted from their brain malfunction, not their conscious will. They will tell us how sorry they are when they return to sanity by effective treatment. They will tell us how hard they work to fix the damage the illness caused. Indiana chose not to execute children and the severely retarded. Indiana should also exempt the profoundly mentally ill.

No one is clamoring for Corcoran's execution except the attorney general's office. The grieving family has steadfastly remained silent. Let the torment of the resurrection of Corcoran's impending death pass from them. Release them from reliving this grief every two years.

The Indiana Legislature must change the law by passing Senate Bill 22. It will prohibit the death penalty in cases where a defendant is found to be afflicted with severe and persistent mental illness, carefully defined to avoid abuse. Senate Bill 22 will save the state of Indiana a lot of money. The proposed law has been passed out of the Bowser Commission, established by the Senate for thorough examination and review. It is strongly supported by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Mental Health American, NAMI National, the American Bar Association, many other organizations and most law enforcement personnel.

The state of Indiana should save its money and spend it on treatment, instead of punishment. Treatment is the true source of safety for all of us.

--------------------------------------------------
Kathleen A. Bayes is executive director of the National Alliance on Mental
Illness Fort Wayne.

Legislation Re Mental Illness & the Death Penalty Introduced in North Carolina

The News & Observer reports that lawmakers in North Carolina will consider legislation aimed at prohibiting the death penalty for offenders with severe mental illness ("Bill would ban execution of mentally ill killers," January 13, 2009).

Here's the full article:

A coalition of advocates for the mentally ill and a state Superior Court judge spoke in favor today of legislation that would exclude the severely mentally ill from the death penalty.

Draft legislation introduced at a joint legislative committee today would allow a judge to determine that a defendant suffered from severe mental illness at the time of the killing. The defendant would
still face a murder trial, but the worst punishment would be life without parole.

Advocates of the legislation say it would only apply to those with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or those with severe brain injuries. People whose criminal acts were the result of drug or alcohol abuse would not be eligible.

"We're talking about individuals whose distortion of thinking is so severe that it's difficult for us to imagine," said James Ellis, a University of New Mexico law professor who successfully argued to the U.S. Supreme Court several years ago that the mentally retarded should not be executed.

Superior Court Judge Carl Fox said the proposed law could save the state money by avoiding capital murder trials for the severely mentally ill. Capital trials are much more expensive because they require an additional defense attorney and defense experts, and typically take longer to try.

Today, North Carolina juries decide during the sentencing phase of a capital trial whether mental illness is a mitigating factor.

Connecticut is the only state to prohibit executing the mentally ill. Nearly 20 other states incorporate similar language in their statutes that set up the standards for being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Advocates say North Carolina's insanity standard is much stricter.

The joint committee will hear more information regarding the proposal at another meeting at 2 p.m. Thursday.

Peg Dorer, director of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys, said the group has not taken a position on the legislation, but she said the proposal is a bad idea.

She said it gives defendants too many opportunities to argue severe mental illness. If they do not get a favorable pretrial ruling, they still have the opportunity to persuade jurors during the sentencing phase and could continue to argue it on appeal.

"It's just dragging the whole system down," she said.
***

More on Paul Devoe

Here's an update on Paul Devoe, from the Austin American-Statesman ("Judge orders Devoe mental records sealed," January 14, 2009):

An Austin judge Tuesday sealed the psychiatric records of murder suspect Paul Devoe, a day after details from the records were aired on television.

On Tuesday, an American-Statesman reporter tried to get copies of psychiatric reports by two physicians who declared Devoe mentally incompetent to stand trial. Although copies of the reports were in Devoe's case file at the Travis County district clerk's office, the reports were sealed later that evening by presiding Judge Brenda Kennedy. The contents of such case files are public records.

Devoe is accused of shooting to death a man at a Marble Falls bar, four people in a Jonestown house and a woman in Pennsylvania in August 2007 before being arrested in New York. Two doctors, one hired by the prosecution and another by the defense, in December declared Devoe unable to assist in his defense.

The psychiatric reports detailed Devoe's history of mental illness and drug use. They were previously obtained and aired by Fox 7 News Austin on Monday night.

Phone messages to Kennedy's office were not returned Tuesday night.

Joel White, a lawyer on the board of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said there was "no point" in Kennedy's sealing records after they were disclosed.

"You can't disclose records and try to take them back," said White, who is not involved in the Devoe case. "It's not within the spirit of the law. Once the information is made public, the court can't pretend to take it back with a sealing order."

Normally, White said, a defendant's psychiatric records are sealed until they are used in a trial. Once used in a judicial hearing, they become public record, he said.

Devoe will be sent to a maximum security psychiatric facility in North Texas.

Capital Murder Defendant Deemed Incompetent

According to the Austin American-Statesman, Paul Devoe, who is facing capital murder charges, has been deemed incompetent to stand trial (January 13, 2009). Competency relates to a defendant’s mental state at the time of trial, not at the time of the alleged crime.

According to Chapter 46B, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure: Article 46B.003. Incompetency; Presumptions:

(a) A person is incompetent to stand trial if the person does not have:

1. sufficient present ability to consult with the person’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or

2. a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person.

(b) A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.

Here's the article from the Statesman:

"Paul Devoe, accused of killing five people in Texas and a woman in Pennsylvania in 2007, has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Two doctors, one hired by the prosecution and another by the defense, declared Devoe incompetent to assist in his defense. The order was signed by Judge Brenda Kennedy on Dec. 22, Travis County Assistant District Attorney Dayna Blazey said Monday. She said that doctors expect Devoe to recover from his current state with care and medication and that she expects him to eventually stand trial.

Devoe, 45, is accused of killing a Marble Falls bartender, four people in a Jonestown house and a woman in Pennsylvania during August 2007 before being arrested in Shirley, N.Y.

'This has nothing to do with his state when he committed the offense,' Blazey said. 'All it has to do with is right now; he is unable to understand the charges against him or unable to cooperate with his attorneys.'

Devoe's mental condition deteriorated while he was in custody, Blazey said. The state's psychiatric report states that he is unable to communicate with his lawyers, she said. He will be sent to Vernon State Hospital, a maximum security psychiatric facility in North Texas, until he is able to stand trial again, Blazey said. Travis County records indicate Devoe is in custody at the county correctional center in Del Valle.

Prosecutors said they were not aware of why the December decision was not disclosed until Monday.

Blazey said Devoe's trial was tentatively scheduled to begin in March. She expects him to recover in about two or three months, after which he would go to trial and prosecutors would seek the death penalty.

'We believe the evidence supports a conviction for capital murder,' Blazey said.

One of Devoe's attorneys, Tom Weber, declined to comment on the decision.

Jonathon Griffith, the son of murder victim Paula Griffith, 46, and brother of victim Haylie Marie Faulkner, 15, said he was not pleased with the declaration of incompetence.

'I think he's trying to game the system,' Griffith said. 'I personally think he's doing this on purpose. I'm sure he's been given medications, and he's not taking them.'

Griffith said he hopes Devoe will become lucid and stand trial 'sooner rather than later.'

Kennedy ruled in July that most of the potentially incriminating statements that Devoe made will be admissible at trial. Devoe's lawyers sought to suppress a series of statements that witnesses say he made about the crimes, including telling a cellmate, 'I killed six people,' and telling his sister that he shot people. According to court testimony, he also asked a Suffolk County, N.Y., police officer, 'Do you know how many bodies they found?'

In 2007, Devoe told the Long Island newspaper Newsday that he doesn't remember shooting five of the six victims and that he 'never meant to hurt anybody in any shape or form.'

But while in jail in Suffolk County, he said he was haunted by their deaths.

'All I hear is screams,' Devoe told the paper."
***
The article is available here.

Editorial: Unjust death penalty

The following editorial appeared today in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette regarding the case of death row inmate Joseph Corcoran. This year, the Indiana Legislature will consider a bill that would prohibit the death penalty for offenders determined to suffer from severe mental illness.

Unjust Death Penalty

"Reinstatement of the death penalty against Joseph Corcoran marks another sad twist in a cruel and misplaced effort to extract justice from a mentally ill man. The sentence should again be thrown out on appeal, and Indiana lawmakers, in the meantime, should finally pass a law banning the execution of the mentally ill.

Corcoran is a prime example of why such a law is needed. He demonstrated classic signs of paranoid schizophrenia when he shot to death his brother, his sister’s fiancé and two other men in 1997 because he thought they were talking about him. Five years earlier, he had been charged but acquitted in the shotgun slaying of his parents.

His horrific story would have ended with a life sentence if Corcoran had agreed to bench trial – with a judge instead of a jury reaching the verdict – but the terms of the deal from then-Allen County Prosecutor Robert Gevers placed the death penalty back on the table with a jury trial. After he was
convicted, Corcoran changed his mind and decided to pursue an appeal, but the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that his decision came too late.

That ruling was overturned in 2007, but last week the U.S. Court of Appeal issued a 2-1 decision reinstating the death penalty. At issue is the question of whether Corcoran is capable of making a rational choice. In her dissent, Judge Ann Claire Williams pointed to the fact that no testimony was presented to suggest that he was.

'The majority reasons that the Indiana Supreme Court was entitled to believe Corcoran’s contention that he wished to waive further proceedings because of his guilt, and I agree that ordinarily, the Indiana court’s decision to rely on one person’s testimony over other people’s testimony would be one to which we would defer,' Williams wrote.

'But this is not a case where the court picked the opinion of one expert who believed Corcoran could make a rational decision over an expert who disagreed,' she wrote. 'Indeed, the state presented no expert who contradicted the conclusions of these three experts. Rather, the person whom the court
credited was a person diagnosed with a severe mental illness that causes delusions, who told a doctor and his sister he wanted to die to escape those delusions.'

Corcoran’s attorneys said they will seek another hearing before the full federal appellate court. If it is denied, they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gov. Mitch Daniels could also commute the death sentence, which he did in the case of Arthur Paul Baird, who killed his parents and pregnant wife in 1985.

Such cases could be avoided in the future if a bill pending in the Indiana General Assembly is approved. Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, has again filed legislation based on the recommendations of the Bowser Commission. Senate Bill 22 would prohibit use of the death penalty in cases where a defendant is found to suffer from a severe mental illness.

This page has long believed that justice is not achieved by killing people. But even those who support the death penalty should agree that putting to death criminals who are mentally ill serves no purpose."
- - - - -

Senate Bill 22
Proposed bill establishes a procedure to determine whether a defendant charged with murder is an individual with a severe mental illness. Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty on a defendant found to be an individual with a severe mental illness. Provides that a jury serves as the fact finder in a sentencing hearing in a capital case, even if the defendant pleads guilty or is tried. … Permits a defendant to waive the right to impanel a jury during the sentencing hearing.
***
An earlier post on Joseph Corcoran is available here.

Update on Death Penalty Case in Indiana

Here's an update from The Journal Gazette on the case of Joseph Corcoran, a severely mentally ill death row inmate in Indiana ("Quadruple-murderer loses death penalty appeal," December 31, 2008):

The state of Indiana can once again reinstate the death penalty against convicted quadruple-murderer Joseph E. Corcoran, according to a 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals issued Wednesday morning.

Just over a year ago, the 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago heard arguments about whether Corcoran's death sentence should be overturned.

In 1999, a jury convicted the then-22-year old Corcoran of four counts of murder. In July 1997, Corcoran shot and killed his brother, James Corcoran, 30; his sister's fiance, Robert Scott Turner, 32; and 2 of his brother's friends - Timothy G. Bricker, 30; and Douglas A. Stillwell, 30 -at a Bayer Avenue home.

At issue was whether Corcoran, who has paranoid schizophrenia, was mentally competent when he waived his right to have a court review his death sentence and whether his constitutional rights were violated when then-Allen County Prosecutor Robert Gevers offered to take the death penalty off the table if Corcoran would agree to a bench trial rather than a jury trial.

In April 2007, U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp overturned Corcoran's death sentence, ruling Gevers inappropriately punished Corcoran by pursuing the death penalty against Corcoran after he declined to face a trial before a judge and chose to allow a jury decide his fate.

The Indiana Attorney General's office appealed Sharp's decision and in it sruling, the 7th Circuit ruled that Corcoran's rights were not violated.

"If it is constitutionally permissible to use the threat of more severe punishment to encourage a guilty plea it should follow that the state's use of the same tactics to encourage a defendant to proceed by bench trial would also be constitutionally permissible," Judge William Bauer wrote in his opinion for the majority.

Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the ruling that Corcoran was mentally competent to waive his right to having a court review his death sentence.

Corcoran's attorneys could appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

OpEd: Mental illness must be in consideration

Here's an OpEd from George Haley, a mental health advocate in Tennessee, in which he offers his perspective as to why the death penalty is inappropriate for offenders with severe mental illness. This appeared on October 16, 2008 in The Tennessean: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/OPINION01/810160338/1008.

In 2007, the Tennessee General Assembly created a committee to examine Tennessee's death penalty system for fairness and accuracy. The committee will conclude its work in December 2008, issuing its recommendations to the legislature in January 2009.

Thus far, the committee has highlighted a number of serious problems, including the lack of adequate defense services for those charged with capital murder, the failure to collect and analyze critical information about death penalty trials and appeals, the lack of accurate information concerning the cost of the death penalty to taxpayers, as well as the number of inmates with severe mental illness on Tennessee's death row.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Atkins v. Virginia decision held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute defendants with mental retardation. In making this decision the court determined that the disabilities of those with mental retardation "do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability." Tennessee was one of 18 states that had already banned the death sentence for those with mental retardation prior to the Supreme Court decision.

Mentally ill not culpable

Currently, defendants diagnosed with severe mental illness are still eligible for the death penalty in Tennessee, even though the most severely mentally ill- those suffering from delusions, hallucinations, or significant disruptions of consciousness - are no more culpable than those with mental retardation. Though mental illness is a significant problem in our nation's prisons, only a small percentage of death row inmates suffered from the most severe mental illness at the time their crimes were committed.

Exempting the most seriously ill inmates from the death penalty does not exempt them from other penalties, such as life without parole or a life sentence. But, such an exemption does allow for a quicker resolution for victims' families while reducing the costs of lengthy appeals and providing a more humane approach toward those who are most ill.

In Tennessee, Richard Taylor was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of a correctional officer - a crime committed only after prison officials stopped giving Taylor his anti-psychotic medication.

Over the next 20 years, Taylor stood trial twice despite his severe mental illness. Finally, in March 2008, Taylor's sentence was reversed by a Tennessee appeals court after he agreed to a life sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. Imagine the years of suffering for the victim's family and costs that could have been avoided if Taylor was ineligible for a death sentence and instead received a life sentence from the start. The state spent millions of dollars to seek death for a man who ultimately received a life sentence anyway. Regardless of one's feelings about the death penalty, Tennessee cannot afford to allow the execution of those with severe mental illness when less costly alternatives are available.

George Haley has served as president of NAMI-TN; chairman of the board oftrustees of Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute; chairman of the board ofdirectors of Park Center, a psycho-social rehabilitation center; and a memberof the Board of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign.

Families Affected by Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Gather in San Antonio

On Friday, October 3, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) launched a groundbreaking new project, Prevention Not Execution (sound familiar?!), which brings together victims' families and families of the executed, all of whom had been affected by mental illness, murder, and the death penalty.

After a private gathering involving the participants, who travelled from Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and elsewhere in Texas, the organizations held a press conference that featured Nick and Amanda Wilcox, Lois Robison, Kim Crespi, and Bill Babbitt. Ed Dickey, the head of NAMI San Antonio, and Ron Honberg, the Legal and Policy Director of NAMI, also spoke about this collaborative effort from the perspective of the nation's leading mental health advocacy organization.

The press conference included a powerful ceremony during which all of the participants placed a rose in a vase and lit a candle in remembrance of their loved ones, the victims' of these crimes, and the perpetrators.

You can view photos from the event and read the moving statements of each speaker at http://mvfhr.blogspot.com/.

In addition, WITNESS, a global human rights organization that uses video and online technologies to open the eyes of the world to human rights violations, is featuring online video from the event launch. The video appears on the home page of The HUB, the first global platform dedicated to human rights media and action. It includes portions of statements by Nick and Amanda Wilcox, Kim Crespi, and Bill Babbitt, as well as a portion of the remembrance ceremony that concluded the event. Here is the link to the video: http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8928 (you might need to install flash to view the content).
***
MVFHR will be conducting interviews with other family members who were not able to attend the San Antonio event and will release a report on this effort next summer.

TX Death Row Inmates Lose Appeals

Here's an update from the Associated Press regarding two Texas cases that involve issues of severe mental illness ("2 condemned killers in Texas lose appeals," October 8, 2008):

"A North Texas auto mechanic whose original death sentence for the 1987 murders of a man and a 4-month-old child was overturned on appeal had his 2nd death sentence upheld Wednesday by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In 1 of 2 death row cases rejected by the state's highest criminal appeals court, lawyers for inmate James Eugene Bigby contended there were 15 errors at his 2nd punishment trial in Tarrant County where jurors in September 2006 deliberated about 4 hours before handing down another death sentence.

In a 2nd case, the Austin-based appeals court upheld the conviction and death sentence of a Grayson County man accused of killing his wife, their son and her daughter. Andre Thomas, now 25, confessed to fatally stabbing all three in their chests in March 2004 and ripping out their hearts.

Neither Thomas nor Bigby has an execution date.

Bigby, now 43, had been convicted and condemned in 1991 for shooting MikeTrekell, who was cooking steaks for himself and Bigby, and drowning Trekell's 4-month-old son, Jayson, in a bathroom sink on Christmas Eve. He confessed to the slayings but pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.

The 2 were among four people killed during a seven-hour spree by Bigby in Fort Worth and Arlington.
The 1st jury convicted Bigby of capital murder just hours after he grabbed a loaded gun from a drawer in state District Judge Don Leonard's bench, charged into Leonard's chambers and pointed the gun at him. The judge, a prosecutor and a bailiff eventually wrestled the gun away from Bigby.

Defense witnesses had testified that Bigby was a paranoid schizophrenic, but the jury rejected Bigby's insanity defense. The former Kennedale automechanic appealed.

In 2005, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Bigby's conviction but overturned his sentence, saying it violated a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that juries should consider mitigating factors, such as mental illness, when deciding whether a defendant should die. The court said paranoid schizophrenia is a severe mental illness, and that Bigby had proven he had it at the time of the slayings.

Bigby's lawyers didn't dispute his actions but noted he'd been treated three times for mental disorders before the killings. They argued he shouldn't be executed because his paranoid schizophrenia and frustrations about a workers' compensation claim led to the killing spree. Prosecutors said drug use and his aggressive personality led to the killings.

In the latest appeal, Bigby challenged selection of some of the jurors, argued the indictment and jury instructions were faulty, again questioned the legality of mitigating evidence issues and the legality of the drugs used for lethal injection.

In Thomas' case, the maintenance man and laborer contended in his appeal that his trial court judge erroneously allowed into evidence video and audio tapes of his statements to police where he told about killing his estranged wife, Laura Christine Boren, their 4-year-old son, Andre Lee, and the woman's 13-month-old daughter, Leyha Marie Hughes.

He was convicted specifically of the infant's death.

Thomas, from Texoma, walked into the Sherman Police Department and told a dispatcher he had just murdered the three and had stabbed himself in the chest. He was taken to a hospital and agreed to speak with officers there. He also spoke later with detectives at the police department.

A judge said he understood rights and warnings that were explained to him.

Defense lawyers argued he suffered from mental illness and alcohol and drug abuse.

The appeals court, in upholding the conviction, ruled Thomas knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. The court also rejected arguments contesting jury selection and challenging introduction of crime scene photos and autopsy results of the victims other than the infant.

Other arguments turned down by the appeals court involved prosecution testimony about Thomas' sanity, that the court should have ruled on his competency before the trial, that his defense lawyers were incompetent and that the jury engaged in misconduct because following their verdicts they told the judge and lawyers they'd wanted to hear true remorse from Thomas.

In his statement to police, Thomas told how he put his victims' hearts in his pocket and left their apartment, took them home, put them in a plastic bag and threw them in the trash."
***
This article doesn't mention that Thomas gouged out his own eyeball while in a cell at the Grayson County jail, where he was awaiting trial. He was then declared incompetent to stand trial and sent to a mental hospital, but was released from care several months later. Doctors claimed that his condition had improved to the point that he would be able to understand the charges against him and help with his own defense.

Thomas' attorneys argued that he committed his crimes while suffering from severe, religious-based delusions about his wife. He was said to have quoted a Bible verse when he gouged out his eye: "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.'' (Mark 9:47)

MVFHR/NAMI Gather Next Week in San Antonio

Media Advisory
September 23, 2008

National Project Launch

Murder Victims’ Families Oppose Death Penalty for People with Severe Mental Illnesses

Washington, D.C.— Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) and the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) will launch a national project opposing the death penalty for persons with severe mental illnesses at a press conference in San Antonio, Texas on October 3.

The initiative builds on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that raise questions about the capacity of individuals diagnosed with severe mental illnesses sentenced to death to understand why they are being executed or even that they will die. A national report on the issue will be released in June 2009, based in part on testimony from family members at San Antonio event.

WHAT: National project launch—press conference

WHEN: Friday, October 3, 2008 3:00 P.M. – 5:00 P.M.

WHERE: University of the Incarnate Word
Bonilla Science Hall 129
Hildebrande—just west of Broadway intersection
San Antonio, TX 78209

WHO: Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR)
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)

- Renny Cushing, MVFHR Executive Director
- Ron Honberg, NAMI Policy & Legal Director
- Bill Babbitt, brother of a Vietnam veteran, who was diagnosed with PTSD and schizophrenia, killed a 78-year old woman, and was executed.
- Lois Robison, a mother whose mentally ill son was discharged from a hospital when his insurance ran out. A county hospital could not admit him unless he became violent. He killed five people. Instead of treatment, he got the death penalty.
- Kim Crespi, mother of victims murdered by husband who suffers from mental illness
- Amanda & Nick Wilcox, parents of victim who was murdered by a person with mental illness
- Other family members of murder victims or executed persons from around the United States

MVFHR is a national organization of family members of murder victims and families of the executed. NAMI is the nation’s largest grassroots organization dedicated to helping individuals and families affected by mental illnesses.

Contacts:

Susannah Sheffer for MVFHR: 617-512-2010 (cell) or sheffer@aceweb.com
Christine Armstrong for NAMI: 703-312-7893 or christinea@nami.org

www.mvfhr.org
www.nami.org

# # #

NAMI/MVFHR Gathering in San Antonio

This column by Dr. María Félix-Ortiz appeared in the San Antonio Express-News on September 10, 2008.

Capital punishment of the mentally ill focus of meeting

This new millennium has seen substantial review of capital punishment.

In 2002, in Atkins vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court wrote that the intellectually disabled can be competent, “but, by definition, they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand others' reactions. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability.”

This overturned a 13-year-old decision that had allowed execution of the mentally ill.
In 2005, the court opined that a juvenile's “immature and irresponsible behavior,” vulnerability to and lack of control over his environment and the fact that he was still developing his identity indicated diminished culpability. In Roper vs. Simmons, the court ruled that a juvenile's diminished culpability meant that execution couldn't serve as retribution or as deterrence of capital crimes.

Could similar reasoning apply to capital punishment of mentally ill offenders?

Mental illness and capital punishment are the focus of a national meeting co-sponsored by National Alliance for Mental Illness and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights at the University of the Incarnate Word on Oct. 3 at 3 p.m. (in BSH 129). Speakers, who will share their perspectives as family members of murder victims and the executed murderers, include:

Bill Babbitt: His brother was executed in California for assaulting and killing a 78-year-old grandmother. Manny was a Marine who served two tours in Vietnam, after which he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. Babbitt remarks (see www.mvfhr.org), “The police promised me that Manny would get the help he needed. For the rest of my life I have to live with the fact that I turned my brother in and that led to his death.”

Lois Robison: Her son became ill with paranoid schizophrenia. Larry was discharged after 30 days, as soon as he turned 21, because he wasn't covered by his parents' insurance. Robison took him to the county hospital, which discharged him and said “not to take him home.” He couldn't be hospitalized unless he was violent. Larry's first episode of violence was to kill five people. Robison remarks, “They told us if he ever got violent they would give him treatment and instead they gave him the death penalty.”

Amanda Wilcox: Her daughter, Laura, a receptionist, was killed by a man who had paranoid schizophrenia.

This event launches a national effort to collect interviews and generate a report to the next NAMI national conference. NAMI and MVFHR hope to educate us about this complex issue.

Effort to ban the death penalty for offenders with mental illness gains momentum in Kentucky

Here's an excerpt from a lengthy article that appeared on September 3 in LEO, the alternative weekly paper in Louisville, Kentucky. The article ("Crazy and Condemned - Kentucky Could Be the First State to Ban Executions of the Severely Mentally Ill") chronicles an emerging effort in Kentucky to secure a legislative prohibition on the death penalty for offenders with severe mental illness. Other states may also introduce legislation during their 2009 sessions.

"It was clear from the beginning Eugene Gall was guilty. It also was clear he was insane.

Driving through a Cincinnati suburb on the morning of April 5, 1978, Gall — a paranoid schizophrenic with a criminal past — spotted a young girl walking alone through the tranquil neighborhood. The 12-year-old girl was on her way to school.

Two hours later, a motorist driving down a stretch of rural highway in northern Kentucky noticed a red windbreaker on the side of the road and stopped to retrieve it. About a mile later, she noticed a textbook in the road and pulled over once again.

Assuming the lost items belonged to a student at the local elementary school, the woman called the principal to report finding the jacket and a book bearing the name Lisa Jansen, written neatly inside the front cover. The principal told her no student by that name attended the school.

Later that afternoon, television newscasts began reporting that Lisa Jansen was missing. By the time the woman called police to report what she had found, they already had a suspect: Eugene Gall.
Just hours after Jansen vanished, police responded to a report of robbery at a small grocery store in Gardnersville, Ky., a tiny town about 20 miles east of Interstate 71. Officers raced into the parking lot as Gall tried to exit, armed with a .357 magnum revolver and $112 from the register. Gunfire erupted, and Gall shot and injured two cops and a bystander before he was captured.

After reviewing Gall’s rap sheet, police questioned him about the missing girl.

In 1970, Gall had been charged with several counts of rape, but a judge found him mentally incompetent to stand trial. He spent 19 months in a mental institution where doctors treated him with anti-psychotic drugs. Eventually, Gall was deemed competent and he pleaded guilty to the charges — although he claimed not to remember the rapes — and spent five years in a state penitentiary.
When police asked Gall if he had any information about Lisa Jansen’s disappearance, he did not deny involvement. Instead, he insisted he could not recall his whereabouts that morning.

The next day, after police found the girl’s body alongside a remote creek in northern Kentucky, 30 miles from her home, Gall was charged with kidnapping, rape and murder. Ultimately, a jury in Boone County, Ky., convicted Gall and sentenced him to death.

'He was severely mentally ill and there was an insanity defense raised, but the jury did not go that way,' says Edward Monahan, a longtime defense lawyer who represented Gall on appeal years later. 'The problem is that juries are very rarely able to bring themselves to make that finding, probably because they fear the person’s release into society and their safety being in danger.'

The jurors undoubtedly saw a monster who — regardless of mental illness — committed a gruesome crime, and they were unwilling to risk sending Gall to a psychiatric facility because he might one day be released. It’s a pervasive fear that compels juries to send inarguably insane defendants not only to prison, but also to death row.

But a growing consensus of legal experts and mental health professionals are pushing for an end to executing the severely mentally ill, claiming the punishment is inappropriate and unconstitutional in cases where a person’s insanity likely led to a crime.

The movement is gaining momentum nationwide and in Kentucky, where state lawmakers are expected to consider a bill next session that would prohibit the execution of the severely mentally ill. If approved, Kentucky would become the first state to enact such a ban.

The law would apply only to a narrow pool of defendants, and would ensure that those convicted still are severely punished, as opposed to institutionalized. They could face life in prison without parole — just not execution.

'When someone behaves in a way that hurts other people substantially, there should be accountability, but the accountability should be based on the culpability of the individual,' says Monahan, who took over as the state’s chief public defender Sept. 1. 'Someone who is severely mentally ill has less ability to be accountable for their conduct. … The ultimate penalty ought not be applied to people who cannot fully control their behavior.'... ”
***
Read the article in full.

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."
###