In Houston, Local 2 Investigative reporter Robert Arnold spent the past six months researching the mental health care system in Harris County. He filed an informative series of reports that explain some of the system's shortcomings (links to the entire series can be found below).
Here are some of his findings:
HCPC has 250 beds, but only enough money to operate 188 of those beds. Countywide, it's even worse. A study by the Mental Health Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County reports there are only 825 psychiatric beds for a county of more than four million.
A report from Mental Health America of Greater Houston shows more than 92,000 adults in Harris County have a serious mental illness and no insurance. MHA reports only about 18 percent received services.
MHA estimates it costs taxpayers between $25,000 and $35,000 per person for crisis care every year. A lack of bed space and no long-term follow-up care when they leave the hospital forces those with mental illness to cycle through the system over and over again. In fact, 20 percent of the patients seen at the County's Neuro-Psychiatric Center last year had been there between two and 11 times in one year.
Jail is an expensive way to treat the mentally ill. It costs $65 a day to house an inmate. It costs $132 a day to house an inmate in the mental health unit. And that doesn't include medication, transport and court costs.
HPD's Mental Health Unit transported more than 2,000 people for psychiatric treatment last year. Sixty of those calls involved people who had been picked up by police three or more times in one year. HPD also estimates 46 percent of its SWAT callouts last year dealt with someone who is mentally ill.
On a more positive note, a jail in-reach program designed by Healthcare for the Homeless-Houston appears to be having some success. This program addresses the critical flaws in the way that homeless, mentally ill inmates are released from jail. Instead of being released at midnight and left to wander the streets alone, those in the program are met outside the jail by an advocate at 8 a.m. The advocate immediately helps the person get prescriptions filled, signs them up for mental health services and tries to find them a home. This program has only been running for a year, but led to a 35 percent decrease in the re-arrest rate of the mentally ill, homeless inmates who participated. Expanding the program could save taxpayers $7 million a year in jail fees. But despite this success, the program is struggling to find the funds to keep going.
Harris County is also running a similar program with mentally ill probationers, called New Starts.
***
Links to the entire series:
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/16352802/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/16353061/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/16364907/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/16365021/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/news/16377187/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/16395993/detail.html
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Non-Lawyer Rate for ABA CLE Program
The ABA has announced a special rate of $25 for non-lawyers, including law students, to participate in its CLE teleconference on "Mental Illness and the Death Penalty: New Hope for Those Threatened with Execution." Register now by going to http://www.abanet.org/cle/programs/t08mia1reg2.html.
More information about this program is available here.
More information about this program is available here.
Harris County Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Quintero
The Harris County jury that rejected Juan Quintero's insanity defense and found him guilty of capital murder in the death of Officer Rodney Johnson has sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Some jurors cited the mitigating evidence presented by Quintero's defense attorneys in explaining their decision to spare his life.
Here are excerpts from an article that appears today in the Houston Chronicle ("Quintero's life sentence shocks victim's family," May 21, 2008):
"One juror said Juan Leonardo Quintero's life still has value.
Another said a convicted cop killer, even one in the country illegally, deserves mercy.
Neither sentiment offered much consolation to family members of murdered Houston police officer Rodney Johnson, who were stunned Tuesday when a jury spared Quintero and sent him to prison for life with no chance of parole.
Asked by state District Judge Joan Campbell if he had anything to say before he was sentenced, the 34-year-old Quintero replied, 'I'm sorry.'
Johnson arrested the landscaper from Mexico during a Sept. 21, 2006, traffic stop. The 12-year police veteran didn't notice Quintero was hiding a gun, which, while handcuffed in the patrol car's back seat, he used to shoot Johnson seven times.
Quintero's lawyers had argued unsuccessfully that he was criminally insane and incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.
'I believe he has value,' said juror Letty Burkholder, of Houston. 'He's loved by many of his family and friends, and that was number one. I felt like he has potential.'
The decision shocked Johnson's family. His sister collapsed in the lobby of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, his mother-in-law shouted in the street. Johnson's widow sobbed in disbelief.
'My husband's life meant nothing — that's what I felt,' said Joslyn Johnson, also an HPD officer.
'If any case ever warranted the death penalty, this certainly did," she said. "The city lost a hero. I lost my husband.'
In front of the courthouse, her mother blasted the jury's decision.
'We wanted the death penalty,' Lorraine Crawford said. 'He's not sorry. He would do it again.'
'Not a life without value'
The decision came in the second day of deliberations for the jury, which convicted Quintero of capital murder on May 8. His defense team praised jurors for careful consideration of 'all of the evidence.'
'This is not a life without value,' defense attorney Danalynn Recer said later. She also said a life sentence would help both families because it ends the case, rather than subjecting them to years of appeals.
She said Quintero's remorse, mental health and family relationships were mitigating factors with jurors, who discussed the case with her afterward.
Assistant District Attorney Denise Bradley called it a sad day for law officers.
Speaking outside the courthouse, Bradley said she was disappointed with the verdict but respected it.
'We take solace in the fact that Mr. Quintero will spend the rest of his life behind bars,' fellow prosecutor John Jordan said.
Most of the jurors chose not to comment. One of two who spoke to reporters agreed that Quintero deserves to live. She said there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to opt for life in prison.
'I still feel we came to the right decision,' said Tiffany Moore, a 38-year-old marketing director from Houston. 'We could never bring Rodney back. I feel very sad for the family, losing a loved one.'
She said she wept while Rodney Johnson's sister, Susan Johnson, read a victim impact statement after the verdict.
'You are a murderer, plain and simple,' Johnson told Quintero while staring at him. She also belittled the defense team, accusing them of manipulating the system, especially with the insanity defense.
She later collapsed on the floor in tears as the family left the courthouse.
The officer's brother, David Johnson, wanted to see Quintero sentenced to death.
'He shot him four times in the back, three times in the head,' Johnson said. 'I can't believe that.
What's mitigation?'..."
***
Additional coverage by the Houston Chronicle is available here. Earlier posts on the case are available here, here, and here.
Here are excerpts from an article that appears today in the Houston Chronicle ("Quintero's life sentence shocks victim's family," May 21, 2008):
"One juror said Juan Leonardo Quintero's life still has value.
Another said a convicted cop killer, even one in the country illegally, deserves mercy.
Neither sentiment offered much consolation to family members of murdered Houston police officer Rodney Johnson, who were stunned Tuesday when a jury spared Quintero and sent him to prison for life with no chance of parole.
Asked by state District Judge Joan Campbell if he had anything to say before he was sentenced, the 34-year-old Quintero replied, 'I'm sorry.'
Johnson arrested the landscaper from Mexico during a Sept. 21, 2006, traffic stop. The 12-year police veteran didn't notice Quintero was hiding a gun, which, while handcuffed in the patrol car's back seat, he used to shoot Johnson seven times.
Quintero's lawyers had argued unsuccessfully that he was criminally insane and incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.
'I believe he has value,' said juror Letty Burkholder, of Houston. 'He's loved by many of his family and friends, and that was number one. I felt like he has potential.'
The decision shocked Johnson's family. His sister collapsed in the lobby of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, his mother-in-law shouted in the street. Johnson's widow sobbed in disbelief.
'My husband's life meant nothing — that's what I felt,' said Joslyn Johnson, also an HPD officer.
'If any case ever warranted the death penalty, this certainly did," she said. "The city lost a hero. I lost my husband.'
In front of the courthouse, her mother blasted the jury's decision.
'We wanted the death penalty,' Lorraine Crawford said. 'He's not sorry. He would do it again.'
'Not a life without value'
The decision came in the second day of deliberations for the jury, which convicted Quintero of capital murder on May 8. His defense team praised jurors for careful consideration of 'all of the evidence.'
'This is not a life without value,' defense attorney Danalynn Recer said later. She also said a life sentence would help both families because it ends the case, rather than subjecting them to years of appeals.
She said Quintero's remorse, mental health and family relationships were mitigating factors with jurors, who discussed the case with her afterward.
Assistant District Attorney Denise Bradley called it a sad day for law officers.
Speaking outside the courthouse, Bradley said she was disappointed with the verdict but respected it.
'We take solace in the fact that Mr. Quintero will spend the rest of his life behind bars,' fellow prosecutor John Jordan said.
Most of the jurors chose not to comment. One of two who spoke to reporters agreed that Quintero deserves to live. She said there were sufficient mitigating circumstances to opt for life in prison.
'I still feel we came to the right decision,' said Tiffany Moore, a 38-year-old marketing director from Houston. 'We could never bring Rodney back. I feel very sad for the family, losing a loved one.'
She said she wept while Rodney Johnson's sister, Susan Johnson, read a victim impact statement after the verdict.
'You are a murderer, plain and simple,' Johnson told Quintero while staring at him. She also belittled the defense team, accusing them of manipulating the system, especially with the insanity defense.
She later collapsed on the floor in tears as the family left the courthouse.
The officer's brother, David Johnson, wanted to see Quintero sentenced to death.
'He shot him four times in the back, three times in the head,' Johnson said. 'I can't believe that.
What's mitigation?'..."
***
Additional coverage by the Houston Chronicle is available here. Earlier posts on the case are available here, here, and here.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
NAMI Joins with Murder Victims' Family Members in Groundbreaking New Project; Request for Assistance
Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) and the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) have come together to draw attention to the intersection between the death penalty and mental illness from the victims’ perspective.
MVFHR is an international organization composed of relatives of homicide victims and relatives of people who have been executed, all of whom oppose the death penalty in all cases. MVFHR opposes the death penalty from a victim perspective (asserting that executions do not help victims achieve justice or closure) and from a human rights perspective (asserting that executions violate the most basic of human rights). Within MVFHR’s membership are relatives of victims killed by persons suffering from mental illness and relatives of mentally ill offenders who have been executed.
NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) is the nation’s largest grassroots organization for people with mental illness and their families. Founded in 1979, NAMI has affiliates in every state and in more than 1,100 local communities across the country. NAMI’s members and friends work to fulfill its mission through support, education and advocacy for better mental health treatment and services. NAMI opposes the death penalty for people with mental illnesses, believing that the execution of these individuals compounds the tragedy of violent crimes and serves no purpose in deterring similar crimes.
MVFHR and NAMI are united in the belief that persons suffering from mental illness should be treated, not executed. Both groups are interested in preventing the conditions that lead to criminal violence and in raising public awareness about the effect of sentencing mentally ill offenders to death. As NAMI Executive Director Michael Fitzpatrick said in a statement in 2006, the death penalty for mentally ill offenders represents “a profound injustice … at the most painful intersection of the mental healthcare and criminal justice systems in America.”
What they’re going to do:
- Organize and host a gathering of family members of victims killed by persons suffering from mental illness and family members of mentally ill offenders who have been executed. The gathering, which will be the first of its kind, will take place in Texas in August 2008, and will include a facilitated private meeting among the families and a public ceremony and press conference.
- Publish a report that will be released at NAMI’s July 2009 conference, which will be held in San Francisco. The report will be based on interviews with 20-30 family members who fit the profiles listed below, and will include policy recommendations and other useful information.
What they’re looking for:
Murder victims’ family members who are, specifically...
- Family members of victims killed by someone suffering from severe mental illness
- Opposed to the death penalty
Families of the executed who are, specifically...
- Family members of someone who suffered from severe mental illness and was executed
- Opposed to the death penalty
- Family members who are related to both the victim and the mentally ill offender, because the murder involved one family member taking the life of another within the same family
(A FAQ with more detailed information about criteria for fitting the profile is available.)
How you can help
- Refer MVFHR to families fitting one of these profiles, or refer them to other people, groups or organizations who might be sources of information about such families.
- Help MVFHR cover the costs of bringing family members to the gathering and public event in Texas by making a donation or recommending potential sources of financial support for this and other aspects of the project.
Please contact Susannah Sheffer with MVFHR at sheffer@aceweb.com if you can offer assistance in either of these areas.
MVFHR is an international organization composed of relatives of homicide victims and relatives of people who have been executed, all of whom oppose the death penalty in all cases. MVFHR opposes the death penalty from a victim perspective (asserting that executions do not help victims achieve justice or closure) and from a human rights perspective (asserting that executions violate the most basic of human rights). Within MVFHR’s membership are relatives of victims killed by persons suffering from mental illness and relatives of mentally ill offenders who have been executed.
NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) is the nation’s largest grassroots organization for people with mental illness and their families. Founded in 1979, NAMI has affiliates in every state and in more than 1,100 local communities across the country. NAMI’s members and friends work to fulfill its mission through support, education and advocacy for better mental health treatment and services. NAMI opposes the death penalty for people with mental illnesses, believing that the execution of these individuals compounds the tragedy of violent crimes and serves no purpose in deterring similar crimes.
MVFHR and NAMI are united in the belief that persons suffering from mental illness should be treated, not executed. Both groups are interested in preventing the conditions that lead to criminal violence and in raising public awareness about the effect of sentencing mentally ill offenders to death. As NAMI Executive Director Michael Fitzpatrick said in a statement in 2006, the death penalty for mentally ill offenders represents “a profound injustice … at the most painful intersection of the mental healthcare and criminal justice systems in America.”
What they’re going to do:
- Organize and host a gathering of family members of victims killed by persons suffering from mental illness and family members of mentally ill offenders who have been executed. The gathering, which will be the first of its kind, will take place in Texas in August 2008, and will include a facilitated private meeting among the families and a public ceremony and press conference.
- Publish a report that will be released at NAMI’s July 2009 conference, which will be held in San Francisco. The report will be based on interviews with 20-30 family members who fit the profiles listed below, and will include policy recommendations and other useful information.
What they’re looking for:
Murder victims’ family members who are, specifically...
- Family members of victims killed by someone suffering from severe mental illness
- Opposed to the death penalty
Families of the executed who are, specifically...
- Family members of someone who suffered from severe mental illness and was executed
- Opposed to the death penalty
- Family members who are related to both the victim and the mentally ill offender, because the murder involved one family member taking the life of another within the same family
(A FAQ with more detailed information about criteria for fitting the profile is available.)
How you can help
- Refer MVFHR to families fitting one of these profiles, or refer them to other people, groups or organizations who might be sources of information about such families.
- Help MVFHR cover the costs of bringing family members to the gathering and public event in Texas by making a donation or recommending potential sources of financial support for this and other aspects of the project.
Please contact Susannah Sheffer with MVFHR at sheffer@aceweb.com if you can offer assistance in either of these areas.
Friday, May 16, 2008
TX Legislative Committees to Hold Hearing
A joint committee hearing involving the House Corrections Committee's subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Illness and the House Committee on Appropriations subcommittee on Criminal Justice will take place on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 10:00 AM in E1.030 at the State Capitol.
The committees will hear public testimony on the following interim charges:
Review and research the availability, coordination, efficiency, and allocation of substance abuse treatment resources for probationers, pretrial defendants, people in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), and parolees. This review should include methods to reduce and improve current assessments, training, and referring protocols and the identification of any barriers that may be impeding all of the above.
Assess the relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior and offer reforms needed to address the proliferation of mental illness in the adult and juvenile criminal justice systems. This review should include an examination of data sharing between criminal justice and health and
human services agencies, proper screening, assessments, treatment, discharge planning, post-release supervision, and community services.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/schedules/html/C2002008052910001.HTM
The committees will hear public testimony on the following interim charges:
Review and research the availability, coordination, efficiency, and allocation of substance abuse treatment resources for probationers, pretrial defendants, people in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), and parolees. This review should include methods to reduce and improve current assessments, training, and referring protocols and the identification of any barriers that may be impeding all of the above.
Assess the relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior and offer reforms needed to address the proliferation of mental illness in the adult and juvenile criminal justice systems. This review should include an examination of data sharing between criminal justice and health and
human services agencies, proper screening, assessments, treatment, discharge planning, post-release supervision, and community services.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/schedules/html/C2002008052910001.HTM
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Mother with Mental Illness Pleads Guilty
According to the Tyler Morning Telegraph, Catherine Alana Stevens, a woman with a long history of mental illness, has plead guilty to murdering her 2-year-old son, William. ("Stevens Found Guilty Of Son’s Murder," May 10, 2008) Charged with capital murder, Stevens faced the death penalty at one point. With her plea agreement, she was given a life sentence and will be eligible for parole after serving 30 years. Unlike at least five other recent cases involving mothers with mental illness who have killed their children, Stevens will not receive mental health services or be committed to a state mental hospital.
Here are excerpts from the article:
"Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham requested that her capital murder indictment be dismissed because of the plea agreement and 7th District Judge Kerry Russell granted it after he sentenced the defendant.
'We are very pleased with the resolution to this case through the hard work of the Tyler Police Department and First Assistant District Attorney April Sikes,' Bingham said. 'We were able to show that in fact (Mrs. Stevens) was not insane.'
Defense attorneys Brett Harrison and Tonda Curry had earlier filed a notice of intent to raise the insanity defense in her capital murder trial but withdrew the motion during the hearing. They said Mrs. Stevens was examined Friday by a doctor who found her competent to proceed with the guilty plea.
'In this case, this mother who killed her child will not be going to a state hospital,' Bingham said. 'She will be going to the penitentiary for life and will not be eligible for parole for 30 years, ensuring that she spends virtually the rest of her life in the penitentiary without a trial and having waived all rights to appeal.'
Bingham said there was no question that Mrs. Stevens had a lengthy history of mental illness, but it did not equate to legal insanity.
'Our (mental health) experts found on the night in question that she knew her conduct was wrong,'he said.
Harrison said the case was a terrible tragedy. He said all of the mental health experts, hired by the state and defense, agreed she had a long history of severe mental disease; but, under Texas law, that alone is not sufficient to establish the insanity defense. Because of that, Mrs. Stevens chose to plead guilty.
'This was fully her decision and we support her decision,' Harrison said.
Under Texas law, people are found legally insane if, at the time of an offense, they did not know their conduct was wrong because of some mental illness or defect.
Mrs. Stevens, clad in a tan jail jumpsuit and shackles, told the judge that over the last five years she had been confined several times in the Rusk State Hospital, a couple of times at the Behavioral Health Center and once at a Dallas hospital. She said she was treated for depression with psychosis.
Harrison said she was found competent to stand trial by several doctors early on in the case, but was examined again Friday before the guilty plea. ..."
and
"Mrs. Stevens was not the first woman to raise the insanity defense in her capital murder case in Smith County.
In 2004, Deanna Laney was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a Smith County jury after she stoned two of her young sons to death and critically injured her toddler in 2003.
After Ms. Laney was acquitted, 114th District Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent ordered her to be placed in a maximum-security inpatient treatment facility. Since then, Judge Kent has presided over closed-door civil commitment hearings each year and determined that Ms. Laney should remain at an inpatient facility."
Here are excerpts from the article:
"Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham requested that her capital murder indictment be dismissed because of the plea agreement and 7th District Judge Kerry Russell granted it after he sentenced the defendant.
'We are very pleased with the resolution to this case through the hard work of the Tyler Police Department and First Assistant District Attorney April Sikes,' Bingham said. 'We were able to show that in fact (Mrs. Stevens) was not insane.'
Defense attorneys Brett Harrison and Tonda Curry had earlier filed a notice of intent to raise the insanity defense in her capital murder trial but withdrew the motion during the hearing. They said Mrs. Stevens was examined Friday by a doctor who found her competent to proceed with the guilty plea.
'In this case, this mother who killed her child will not be going to a state hospital,' Bingham said. 'She will be going to the penitentiary for life and will not be eligible for parole for 30 years, ensuring that she spends virtually the rest of her life in the penitentiary without a trial and having waived all rights to appeal.'
Bingham said there was no question that Mrs. Stevens had a lengthy history of mental illness, but it did not equate to legal insanity.
'Our (mental health) experts found on the night in question that she knew her conduct was wrong,'he said.
Harrison said the case was a terrible tragedy. He said all of the mental health experts, hired by the state and defense, agreed she had a long history of severe mental disease; but, under Texas law, that alone is not sufficient to establish the insanity defense. Because of that, Mrs. Stevens chose to plead guilty.
'This was fully her decision and we support her decision,' Harrison said.
Under Texas law, people are found legally insane if, at the time of an offense, they did not know their conduct was wrong because of some mental illness or defect.
Mrs. Stevens, clad in a tan jail jumpsuit and shackles, told the judge that over the last five years she had been confined several times in the Rusk State Hospital, a couple of times at the Behavioral Health Center and once at a Dallas hospital. She said she was treated for depression with psychosis.
Harrison said she was found competent to stand trial by several doctors early on in the case, but was examined again Friday before the guilty plea. ..."
and
"Mrs. Stevens was not the first woman to raise the insanity defense in her capital murder case in Smith County.
In 2004, Deanna Laney was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a Smith County jury after she stoned two of her young sons to death and critically injured her toddler in 2003.
After Ms. Laney was acquitted, 114th District Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent ordered her to be placed in a maximum-security inpatient treatment facility. Since then, Judge Kent has presided over closed-door civil commitment hearings each year and determined that Ms. Laney should remain at an inpatient facility."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)