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
# # #
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
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.
"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.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Upholding Legal Rights of Mentally Ill Defendants
That's the title of a new posting on the blog Women in Crime Ink, by Lucy Puryear, M.D.:
"On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of the U.S. issued a decision in which it held that a higher standard must be used to determine defendants' competence to represent themselves in criminal cases than the test used to determine the accuseds' competence to stand trial. Plainly speaking, this means that while a mentally ill defendant can be found competent to stand trial it does not necessarily follow that they can competently represent themselves as their own counsel.
Fundamentally this could be viewed as a negative decision for the mentally ill. One of our constitutional rights is self-representation in court. We are allowed to tell our story the way we want it told and to plead our case in a manner that we believe is in our own best interest. Now most of us would do a pretty terrible job of maneuvering ourselves through a court case, but sometimes taking your lawyers advice doesn't turn out as you'd hoped. I have heard defendants ask, 'Why didn't my lawyer do this, or why didn't they say that?' Sometimes juries will express, 'Why didn't we hear from the defendant, I want to hear his version of the story.' Not speaking for yourself is not always the right decision.
It becomes very complicated in a case where the defendant is floridly psychotic (hearing voices, speaking in gibberish). Nothing useful will come from that defendant trying to conduct his own trial. The court process becomes derailed and nothing good is accomplished for either the defense or the prosecution. Often the defendant by his very mental state convicts himself with little effort by the prosecution.
But does it make sense to allow someone to be competent to stand trial and yet too ill to represent themselves? Most courtrooms are all too ready to allow a mentally ill defendant to be tried. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States said yes in the Indiana v. Edwards decision.
In July 1999, Ahmad Edwards was discovered trying to steal a pair of shoes from an Indiana department store. After being discovered, he fired a gun at a store security officer and wounded a bystander. He was charged with attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, criminal recklessness and theft. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state psychiatric hospital for further evaluation and treatment. His competency and mental status fluctuated over the course of five years and he was not found competent to proceed to trial until July 2004.
In June 2005, Edwards stood trial. He asked to represent himself but the trial court rejected this request and the jury found him guilty of criminal recklessness and theft but failed to reach a verdict on the charges of attempted murder and battery. The State decided to retry him on the attempted murder and battery charges and he was retried in December 2005. The trial court again found that he was competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself.
Despite being represented by counsel at his retrial, the jury convicted him on both counts. Edwards appealed, arguing that he had been wrongfully deprived of his constitutional right to represent himself. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which addressed the legal question of whether the standard for allowing defendants to represent themselves at trial should be higher than the standard for finding defendants competent to stand trial.
The Court decided that there was a higher standard for representing yourself than the standard for competency. To be found competent to stand trial you must be able to consult with your attorney with a 'reasonable degree of rational understanding.' This means in general that you are able to know what you have been charged with, be able to consult in formulating your own defense, and be able to explain the nature of the pleas involved. (In an interesting aside, Andrea Yates was found competent to stand trial although she initially wanted to plead guilty so that she would be executed by the state which was the only entity who could kill Satan inside of her. She understood the plea but her psychosis was unable to initially allow her to follow her lawyer's advice.)
The Edwards decision states that to be competent to represent yourself you must have the ability for 'organization of defense, making motions, arguing points of law . . . questioning witnesses and addressing the court and jury.' The court is stating that those that are mentally ill may be well enough be found competent but still not be able to represent themselves. While this may appear to be taking away the rights from persons with a disability it may be ultimately in their best legal defense. The Court also comments on the humaneness of the decision, 'A right of self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel,' Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote. 'To the contrary, given that defendant's uncertain mental state, the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling.'
The United States has long struggled with the treatment of the mentally ill. From locking them up in sanitariums for years to locking them up in jails. No one knows quite what to do with the mentally ill defendant who, although it may be obvious that they've committed a crime, it's also obvious that they are seriously disturbed. In Houston alone it is estimated that some 50% of the inmates in the juvenile justice system are seriously and chronically mentally ill. Jail is not a great treatment for a psychiatric disorder.
Texas in particular has struggled with the death penalty and the mentally ill criminal. We have had a history of executing those with known, documented, and profound psychotic illness. This is an embarrassment for our state and a terrible example for respecting human rights. This ruling by the United States Supreme Court is a very small step forward in assuring that those who commit crimes and are suffering from mental illness have both their rights protected and receive fair trails [sic]. What to do with a mentally ill defendant after conviction is the topic of another blog. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on a very complicated issue."
***
"On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of the U.S. issued a decision in which it held that a higher standard must be used to determine defendants' competence to represent themselves in criminal cases than the test used to determine the accuseds' competence to stand trial. Plainly speaking, this means that while a mentally ill defendant can be found competent to stand trial it does not necessarily follow that they can competently represent themselves as their own counsel.
Fundamentally this could be viewed as a negative decision for the mentally ill. One of our constitutional rights is self-representation in court. We are allowed to tell our story the way we want it told and to plead our case in a manner that we believe is in our own best interest. Now most of us would do a pretty terrible job of maneuvering ourselves through a court case, but sometimes taking your lawyers advice doesn't turn out as you'd hoped. I have heard defendants ask, 'Why didn't my lawyer do this, or why didn't they say that?' Sometimes juries will express, 'Why didn't we hear from the defendant, I want to hear his version of the story.' Not speaking for yourself is not always the right decision.
It becomes very complicated in a case where the defendant is floridly psychotic (hearing voices, speaking in gibberish). Nothing useful will come from that defendant trying to conduct his own trial. The court process becomes derailed and nothing good is accomplished for either the defense or the prosecution. Often the defendant by his very mental state convicts himself with little effort by the prosecution.
But does it make sense to allow someone to be competent to stand trial and yet too ill to represent themselves? Most courtrooms are all too ready to allow a mentally ill defendant to be tried. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States said yes in the Indiana v. Edwards decision.
In July 1999, Ahmad Edwards was discovered trying to steal a pair of shoes from an Indiana department store. After being discovered, he fired a gun at a store security officer and wounded a bystander. He was charged with attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, criminal recklessness and theft. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state psychiatric hospital for further evaluation and treatment. His competency and mental status fluctuated over the course of five years and he was not found competent to proceed to trial until July 2004.
In June 2005, Edwards stood trial. He asked to represent himself but the trial court rejected this request and the jury found him guilty of criminal recklessness and theft but failed to reach a verdict on the charges of attempted murder and battery. The State decided to retry him on the attempted murder and battery charges and he was retried in December 2005. The trial court again found that he was competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself.
Despite being represented by counsel at his retrial, the jury convicted him on both counts. Edwards appealed, arguing that he had been wrongfully deprived of his constitutional right to represent himself. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which addressed the legal question of whether the standard for allowing defendants to represent themselves at trial should be higher than the standard for finding defendants competent to stand trial.
The Court decided that there was a higher standard for representing yourself than the standard for competency. To be found competent to stand trial you must be able to consult with your attorney with a 'reasonable degree of rational understanding.' This means in general that you are able to know what you have been charged with, be able to consult in formulating your own defense, and be able to explain the nature of the pleas involved. (In an interesting aside, Andrea Yates was found competent to stand trial although she initially wanted to plead guilty so that she would be executed by the state which was the only entity who could kill Satan inside of her. She understood the plea but her psychosis was unable to initially allow her to follow her lawyer's advice.)
The Edwards decision states that to be competent to represent yourself you must have the ability for 'organization of defense, making motions, arguing points of law . . . questioning witnesses and addressing the court and jury.' The court is stating that those that are mentally ill may be well enough be found competent but still not be able to represent themselves. While this may appear to be taking away the rights from persons with a disability it may be ultimately in their best legal defense. The Court also comments on the humaneness of the decision, 'A right of self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel,' Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote. 'To the contrary, given that defendant's uncertain mental state, the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling.'
The United States has long struggled with the treatment of the mentally ill. From locking them up in sanitariums for years to locking them up in jails. No one knows quite what to do with the mentally ill defendant who, although it may be obvious that they've committed a crime, it's also obvious that they are seriously disturbed. In Houston alone it is estimated that some 50% of the inmates in the juvenile justice system are seriously and chronically mentally ill. Jail is not a great treatment for a psychiatric disorder.
Texas in particular has struggled with the death penalty and the mentally ill criminal. We have had a history of executing those with known, documented, and profound psychotic illness. This is an embarrassment for our state and a terrible example for respecting human rights. This ruling by the United States Supreme Court is a very small step forward in assuring that those who commit crimes and are suffering from mental illness have both their rights protected and receive fair trails [sic]. What to do with a mentally ill defendant after conviction is the topic of another blog. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on a very complicated issue."
***
Friday, August 22, 2008
Judge Orders Competency Evaluation for Jeff Wood
Just hours before the execution of Jeff Wood was scheduled to take place, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio granted a request by Wood's attorneys to delay the execution so they could hire a mental health expert to pursue their arguments that he is incompetent to be executed. Texas courts had previously refused similar appeals.
Here are excerpts from the story that ran in the Houston Chronicle ("Accomplice in 1996 slaying gets execution delay," August 22, 2008):
"Wood's 'motion presents non-frivolous arguments suggesting (he) currently lacks a rational understanding of the connection between his role in his offense and the punishment imposed upon him,' Garcia wrote in his order.
While Garcia wrote that the evidence was far from compelling, there were enough facts to conclude Wood had made a 'substantial threshold showing of insanity.'
Garcia wrote that his decision was based on the state trial court's refusal to afford Wood fundamental due process protections mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision [in Panetti v. Quarterman], which blocked the execution of a mentally ill Texas death row inmate because lower courts failed to consider whether he had a rationa lunderstanding of why he was to be killed. (Ed. Note: Panetti has since been found competent to be executed though he does not have an execution date.)
Wood's attorneys say he suffers from paranoia and delusions, but the state does not recognize he suffers from mental illness. ..."
and
"Garcia appointed attorneys Scott Sullivan of San Antonio and Jared Tyler of Houston to represent Wood and a psychiatrist to work with them.
'We are relieved that we are going through the process whereby the court will determine if he is competent to be executed,' Sullivan said. 'It is a process that is dearly needed in this case.'
Sullivan said he will report the results of his client's psychiatric testing to the court early next year.
If the judge, after considering the psychiatric evaluation, finds Wood competent, he again will be scheduled for execution. If not, he will receive psychiatric care in a prison setting.
Sullivan acted as Wood's court-appointed attorney in an unsuccessful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the high court's rebuff, Wood, though indigent, has been without court-appointed counsel. A Kerrville state district court denied Wood's petition to obtain another court-appointed lawyer.
Sullivan said he has provided Wood free legal assistance as the execution date drew near.
In a terse parsing of legal procedures, Garcia noted that Wood, in his latest appeals, was granted neither a court-appointed lawyer nor expert assistance in establishing that he was not competent.
Instead, Garcia wrote, the state insisted Wood make a 'substantial showing of incompetency' before he was entitled to a court-designated lawyer or mental health expert.
'With all due respect,' the judge wrote, 'a system which requires an insane person to first make a 'substantial showing' of his own lack of mental capacity without the assistance of counsel or a mental health expert, in order to obtain such assistance is, by definition, an insane system.'
Garcia conceded that Wood's claim of incompetence 'is far from compelling,' but noted that 'petitioner's delusional thought processes convinced at least one jury he was incompetent to stand trial in May 1997.'
The judge noted that mental health experts who interviewed Wood during the period between his two trials found the killer's 'narcissistic tendencies and almost delusional belief in the inevitability of his ultimate vindication have grown more prominent.'
'Moreover,' the judge wrote, 'the petitioner exhibited a bizarre, seemingly paranoid, clearly suicidal ideation during his capital trial.' During thepunishment phase, Wood banned his attorneys from calling witnesses on his behalf.
Garcia wrote that Wood's petition for a stay 'at least arguably suggest(s) petitioner lacks a rational understanding of the causal link between his rolein his criminal offense and the reason he has been sentenced to death.'"
And here is the article that appeared in the New York Times ("Federal Judge, Chastising the Texas Courts, Orders a Stay of Execution," August 22, 2008):
"With only hours until his scheduled execution, a man won a stay Thursday when a federal judge granted him a hearing to determine whether he was mentally competent.
The condemned man, Jeffery Lee Wood, 35, was to be put to death Thursday evening for a killing committed by his partner in a 1996 robbery. But the execution was put off for at least six months by the decision of the judge, Orlando Luis Garcia of the Federal District Court in San Antonio, who suggested that he would hold the hearing next February or March.
The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, had yet to decide Thursday night whether he would appeal the decision, said a spokeswoman for his office, Lauri Saathoff.
Mr. Wood’s lawyers argue that he is too delusional to understand why he is to die and thinks that among other things he is the victim of a Freemason conspiracy.
Judge Garcia wrote that Mr. Wood’s bizarre statements at his trial and in prison 'at least arguably suggest the petitioner lacks a rational understanding of the causal link between his role in his criminal offense and the reason he has been sentenced to death.'
The judge said the Texas courts erred badly in the last week when they refused to hire mental health experts to determine whether Mr. Wood was mad or to appoint a lawyer to represent him at a competency hearing.
The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to execute insane people who cannot understand why they are being put to death or that their execution is imminent.
Judge Garcia said lawyers for Mr. Wood had submitted enough evidence of a delusional state of mind to warrant a hearing on the matter, and he strongly chastised the state courts for denying Mr. Wood a lawyer and a psychologist to help make that claim.
Mr. Wood was caught in a Catch-22, the judge said. The state courts ruled that he had to show he was insane for them to appoint a lawyer and a psychologist to help him prove he was insane. That, the judge said, is 'an insane system.'
Mr. Wood has a very limited intellect and a history of emotional problems, learning disabilities and, in prison, suicide attempts.
'He will become delusional and deny the apparent reality right in front of him,' said one of his lawyers, J. Scott Sullivan. 'He has a delusion a bribewould solve this whole problem.'
Mr. Wood was arrested shortly after his partner in crime, Daniel Reneau, fatally shot a cashier during the robbery of a gas station 12 years ago. Mr. Wood was outside in a getaway car when the shot was fired by Mr. Reneau, who was executed in 2002.
Mr. Wood’s mental problems were severe enough that one jury found him incompetent to stand trial. After spending time in a mental hospital, he was found competent by a second jury. In 1998, he was convicted of murder under a Texas law that makes all who are involved in a felony, like robbery, subject to the death penalty if one of them commits murder in the course of it.
Evidence of Mr. Wood’s mental troubles was never brought before the jury that imposed the death penalty, largely because he became angry and told his lawyers to do nothing during the penalty phase, instructions with which they complied. In his ruling on Thursday, Judge Garcia said that this behavior by Mr. Wood was 'bizarre, seemingly paranoid and clearly suicidal.'"
***
Additional coverage:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_delays_execution_blasts_insane_system_to_determine_sanity/
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpkdpV0pGSS_ozv30DC1F1QkVd5wD92MUUEG4
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTfYEAqM59CPb8mVNODlJeBudbiw
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5956797.html
Here are excerpts from the story that ran in the Houston Chronicle ("Accomplice in 1996 slaying gets execution delay," August 22, 2008):
"Wood's 'motion presents non-frivolous arguments suggesting (he) currently lacks a rational understanding of the connection between his role in his offense and the punishment imposed upon him,' Garcia wrote in his order.
While Garcia wrote that the evidence was far from compelling, there were enough facts to conclude Wood had made a 'substantial threshold showing of insanity.'
Garcia wrote that his decision was based on the state trial court's refusal to afford Wood fundamental due process protections mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision [in Panetti v. Quarterman], which blocked the execution of a mentally ill Texas death row inmate because lower courts failed to consider whether he had a rationa lunderstanding of why he was to be killed. (Ed. Note: Panetti has since been found competent to be executed though he does not have an execution date.)
Wood's attorneys say he suffers from paranoia and delusions, but the state does not recognize he suffers from mental illness. ..."
and
"Garcia appointed attorneys Scott Sullivan of San Antonio and Jared Tyler of Houston to represent Wood and a psychiatrist to work with them.
'We are relieved that we are going through the process whereby the court will determine if he is competent to be executed,' Sullivan said. 'It is a process that is dearly needed in this case.'
Sullivan said he will report the results of his client's psychiatric testing to the court early next year.
If the judge, after considering the psychiatric evaluation, finds Wood competent, he again will be scheduled for execution. If not, he will receive psychiatric care in a prison setting.
Sullivan acted as Wood's court-appointed attorney in an unsuccessful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the high court's rebuff, Wood, though indigent, has been without court-appointed counsel. A Kerrville state district court denied Wood's petition to obtain another court-appointed lawyer.
Sullivan said he has provided Wood free legal assistance as the execution date drew near.
In a terse parsing of legal procedures, Garcia noted that Wood, in his latest appeals, was granted neither a court-appointed lawyer nor expert assistance in establishing that he was not competent.
Instead, Garcia wrote, the state insisted Wood make a 'substantial showing of incompetency' before he was entitled to a court-designated lawyer or mental health expert.
'With all due respect,' the judge wrote, 'a system which requires an insane person to first make a 'substantial showing' of his own lack of mental capacity without the assistance of counsel or a mental health expert, in order to obtain such assistance is, by definition, an insane system.'
Garcia conceded that Wood's claim of incompetence 'is far from compelling,' but noted that 'petitioner's delusional thought processes convinced at least one jury he was incompetent to stand trial in May 1997.'
The judge noted that mental health experts who interviewed Wood during the period between his two trials found the killer's 'narcissistic tendencies and almost delusional belief in the inevitability of his ultimate vindication have grown more prominent.'
'Moreover,' the judge wrote, 'the petitioner exhibited a bizarre, seemingly paranoid, clearly suicidal ideation during his capital trial.' During thepunishment phase, Wood banned his attorneys from calling witnesses on his behalf.
Garcia wrote that Wood's petition for a stay 'at least arguably suggest(s) petitioner lacks a rational understanding of the causal link between his rolein his criminal offense and the reason he has been sentenced to death.'"
And here is the article that appeared in the New York Times ("Federal Judge, Chastising the Texas Courts, Orders a Stay of Execution," August 22, 2008):
"With only hours until his scheduled execution, a man won a stay Thursday when a federal judge granted him a hearing to determine whether he was mentally competent.
The condemned man, Jeffery Lee Wood, 35, was to be put to death Thursday evening for a killing committed by his partner in a 1996 robbery. But the execution was put off for at least six months by the decision of the judge, Orlando Luis Garcia of the Federal District Court in San Antonio, who suggested that he would hold the hearing next February or March.
The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, had yet to decide Thursday night whether he would appeal the decision, said a spokeswoman for his office, Lauri Saathoff.
Mr. Wood’s lawyers argue that he is too delusional to understand why he is to die and thinks that among other things he is the victim of a Freemason conspiracy.
Judge Garcia wrote that Mr. Wood’s bizarre statements at his trial and in prison 'at least arguably suggest the petitioner lacks a rational understanding of the causal link between his role in his criminal offense and the reason he has been sentenced to death.'
The judge said the Texas courts erred badly in the last week when they refused to hire mental health experts to determine whether Mr. Wood was mad or to appoint a lawyer to represent him at a competency hearing.
The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to execute insane people who cannot understand why they are being put to death or that their execution is imminent.
Judge Garcia said lawyers for Mr. Wood had submitted enough evidence of a delusional state of mind to warrant a hearing on the matter, and he strongly chastised the state courts for denying Mr. Wood a lawyer and a psychologist to help make that claim.
Mr. Wood was caught in a Catch-22, the judge said. The state courts ruled that he had to show he was insane for them to appoint a lawyer and a psychologist to help him prove he was insane. That, the judge said, is 'an insane system.'
Mr. Wood has a very limited intellect and a history of emotional problems, learning disabilities and, in prison, suicide attempts.
'He will become delusional and deny the apparent reality right in front of him,' said one of his lawyers, J. Scott Sullivan. 'He has a delusion a bribewould solve this whole problem.'
Mr. Wood was arrested shortly after his partner in crime, Daniel Reneau, fatally shot a cashier during the robbery of a gas station 12 years ago. Mr. Wood was outside in a getaway car when the shot was fired by Mr. Reneau, who was executed in 2002.
Mr. Wood’s mental problems were severe enough that one jury found him incompetent to stand trial. After spending time in a mental hospital, he was found competent by a second jury. In 1998, he was convicted of murder under a Texas law that makes all who are involved in a felony, like robbery, subject to the death penalty if one of them commits murder in the course of it.
Evidence of Mr. Wood’s mental troubles was never brought before the jury that imposed the death penalty, largely because he became angry and told his lawyers to do nothing during the penalty phase, instructions with which they complied. In his ruling on Thursday, Judge Garcia said that this behavior by Mr. Wood was 'bizarre, seemingly paranoid and clearly suicidal.'"
***
Additional coverage:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_delays_execution_blasts_insane_system_to_determine_sanity/
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gpkdpV0pGSS_ozv30DC1F1QkVd5wD92MUUEG4
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTfYEAqM59CPb8mVNODlJeBudbiw
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5956797.html
Thursday, August 21, 2008
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."
###
Here's a press release from Texas Defender Service:
STAY OF EXECUTION GRANTED IN TEXAS DEATH PENALTY CASE OF MENTALLY-ILL INMATE WHO WAS NOT TRIGGERMAN
WOOD EXECUTION HALTED BASED ON TEXAS STATE COURTS FAILURE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS ON ISSUES RELATING TO WOOD'S MENTAL ILLNESS
Austin -- Today, the Federal District Court granted a stay of execution in the case of Jeff Wood to allow the court to consider compelling evidence that Jeff Wood is too mentally ill to be executed. The Court held that the Texas state courts have not carefully reviewed the question of Wood's competence and that a stay of execution is necessary to ensure that Wood's mental health issues are fully presented and considered by the courts. The Court's Order Granting Stay of Execution is attached.
"We applaud the Federal District Court for upholding Jeff Wood's rudimentary due process right to have his competency evaluated," said Andrea Keilen, executive director of Texas Defender Service, who, along with attorney Scott Sullivan, are representing Mr. Wood.
The Federal District Court authorized an attorney and the assistance of mental health experts, pointing out that the Texas state courts had not complied with the basic due process that the United States Supreme Court required in another Texas case - that of Scott Panetti, a mentally ill death row inmate with a 20-year history of schizophrenia, who was permitted to represent himself at trial dressed in a purple cowboy costume.
In its 20-page order, the Court stated, "With all due respect, a system that requires an insane person to first make "a substantial showing" of his own lack of mental capacity without the assistance of counsel or a mental health expert, in order to obtain such assistance is, by definition, an insane system."
Prosecutors have indicated they will not appeal today's decision. Yesterday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the application for clemency ona vote of 7-0 despite the mental health evidence and fact that it isundisputed that Jeff Wood did not kill the victim in this case, but rather wasoutside the building in a car at the time of the murder. The actual killer, Daniel Reneau, was already executed by the State of Texas in 2002.
Wood was convicted and sentenced to death as a party for the death of Kriss Keeran in Kerr County, Texas. Mr. Wood was convicted under Texas' "law of parties" statute that allows for the conviction of participants in a crime even if they have do not know a murder will be committed or commit murder themselves.
Wood has never taken a human life by his own hands. Keeran's unfortunate death was the result of a reckless scheme devised to steal the money that had accumulated in a Kerrville convenience store over a holiday weekend. Reneau armed himself, entered the store, and shot the victim. Wood was involved in the robbery this case because of his longstanding mental illness that allowed him to be easily manipulated by the principal actor, Daniel Reneau. Wood's emotional and psychological impairments, including his intellectuall imitations, diminished Wood's capacity to anticipate what Daniel Reneau would do inside the convenience store.
At the punishment phase of the trial, influenced by his mental health issues, Woods directed his lawyers not to present any evidence in his defense. Mr. Wood's attorneys made no cross examination of any of the State's witnesses. They presented no evidence or witnesses on Mr. Wood's behalf. And they offered no reasons or arguments why the twelve people sitting on Mr. Wood's jury should extend mercy to him and spare his life.
Wood's mental illness was a critical element at trial and in 1997, Wood was initially found incompetent to stand trial. Mr. Wood suffers today from the same psychological and emotional impairments for which a jury found him incompetent to stand trial in 1997. He has never received psychiatric or mental health care for these impairments. The same deficiencies that prevented Mr. Wood from communicating with his trial lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding prevent Mr. Wood from having a rational understanding of his death sentence and impending execution.
A neuropsychologist who evaluated Wood's competence to stand trial said that Mr. Wood "ha[d] a delusional system, an inability to grasp the reality surrounding the issues specific to this case, his role in it, in the crime, as well as other things that present a direct threat to his own well-being, his own sense of self."
###
More on TX Inmate Jeff Wood
The following AP story contains more information about Jeff Wood's mental impairments ("Lawyers try to block execution set for Thursday," August 20, 2008). His attorneys have argued that Wood's delusions render him incompetent to be executed.
"Lawyers for condemned prisoner Jeffery Wood say his mental problems led him to get involved in a robbery scheme that left a Texas Hill Country store clerk murdered in a fatal shooting carried out by a partner while Wood sat outside in a car.
Attorneys for Wood were in the federal courts seeking permission to hire mental health experts to pursue their arguments that he was incompetent to be executed Thursday for the January 1996 slaying of Kriss Keeran, 31, at a Kerrville Texaco gas station convenience store.
Texas courts have refused the appeals.
Wood would be the 9th condemned prisoner put to death this year and the 5th this month in the nation's busiest capital punishment state. At least a dozen other Texas inmates have execution dates in the coming months.
Daniel Reneau, the gunman in Keeran's slaying and Wood's roommate, was executed in 2002. Wood, whose 35th birthday was Tuesday, was convicted under the Texas law of parties, which makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer in capital murder cases.
Wood's mental illness 'was a critical element throughout his trial and sentencing,' Wood's lawyers said.
Attorney Scott Sullivan said in a motion rejected Tuesday by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that he met with Wood a month ago at death row and Wood told him he believed the trial judge in his case was corrupt but would accept a $100,000 bribe and then deport him to Norway where he couldlive with his wife.
Sullivan said Wood also believed, among other things, that the government will pay him $50,000 a year once he's released and that he's willing to give that money to the judge.
'Wood's delusional beliefs are true to him and always presented in grandiose fashion,' Sullivan said.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has barred the execution of prisoners determined to be mentally retarded, the same blanket prohibition has not been extended to those with mental illness.
Wood, who declined to speak with reporters as his execution date neared, initially was found by a jury to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. After a brief stint at a state hospital, a 2nd jury found him competent.
At his capital murder trial, he tried to fire his lawyers before the penalty phase. The trial judge denied the request but Wood's lawyers followed their client's wishes, called no witnesses and declined to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Wood's appeals lawyers urged Gov. Rick Perry to use his authority to grant a 1-time 30-day reprieve for Wood so a mental health expert could be appointed to examine him.
"Given his long-standing history of mental illness, Gov. Perry must not allow Mr. Wood's execution to go forward without allowing the court to rule on this rudimentary due process right," said Andrea Keilin, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, a legal group that represents death row inmates.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles already has refused, on a 7-0 vote, to recommend the governor grant clemency to Wood, whose lawyers compared his case to another convicted Texas killer, Kenneth Foster. A year ago, Foster won a commutation from the parole board, Perry agreed and Foster now is serving a life sentence.
Foster also was condemned under the law of parties, although Perry's explanation for commuting Foster was that Foster and his co-defendant were tried together on capital murder charges for a slaying in San Antonio.
In Wood's case, he and Reneau were tried separately.
At least a half dozen other Texas inmates have been executed under the law of parties.
Reneau and Wood knew Keeran, 31. Wood's lawyers said his mental illness allowed him to be easily manipulated by Reneau, who they called "the principal actor" in the shooting.
Lucy Wilke, the Kerr County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Wood, described him after his 1998 trial as "not a dummy" and called the slaying "cold-blooded, premeditated."
Evidence showed Reneau entered the store before dawn on Jan. 2, 1996, and fatally shot Keeran once in the face with a .22-caliber pistol. Then joined by Wood, they robbed the store of more than $11,000 in cash and checks. Both were arrested within 24 hours.
According to court records, Wood was waiting outside the store and came in after Keeran was shot, then both fled with the store safe, a cash box and a video recorder containing a security tape showing the robbery and slaying. Evidence showed the pair had planned the robbery for a couple of weeks and unsuccessfully tried recruiting Keeran and another employee to stage a phony robbery."
"Lawyers for condemned prisoner Jeffery Wood say his mental problems led him to get involved in a robbery scheme that left a Texas Hill Country store clerk murdered in a fatal shooting carried out by a partner while Wood sat outside in a car.
Attorneys for Wood were in the federal courts seeking permission to hire mental health experts to pursue their arguments that he was incompetent to be executed Thursday for the January 1996 slaying of Kriss Keeran, 31, at a Kerrville Texaco gas station convenience store.
Texas courts have refused the appeals.
Wood would be the 9th condemned prisoner put to death this year and the 5th this month in the nation's busiest capital punishment state. At least a dozen other Texas inmates have execution dates in the coming months.
Daniel Reneau, the gunman in Keeran's slaying and Wood's roommate, was executed in 2002. Wood, whose 35th birthday was Tuesday, was convicted under the Texas law of parties, which makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer in capital murder cases.
Wood's mental illness 'was a critical element throughout his trial and sentencing,' Wood's lawyers said.
Attorney Scott Sullivan said in a motion rejected Tuesday by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that he met with Wood a month ago at death row and Wood told him he believed the trial judge in his case was corrupt but would accept a $100,000 bribe and then deport him to Norway where he couldlive with his wife.
Sullivan said Wood also believed, among other things, that the government will pay him $50,000 a year once he's released and that he's willing to give that money to the judge.
'Wood's delusional beliefs are true to him and always presented in grandiose fashion,' Sullivan said.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has barred the execution of prisoners determined to be mentally retarded, the same blanket prohibition has not been extended to those with mental illness.
Wood, who declined to speak with reporters as his execution date neared, initially was found by a jury to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. After a brief stint at a state hospital, a 2nd jury found him competent.
At his capital murder trial, he tried to fire his lawyers before the penalty phase. The trial judge denied the request but Wood's lawyers followed their client's wishes, called no witnesses and declined to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Wood's appeals lawyers urged Gov. Rick Perry to use his authority to grant a 1-time 30-day reprieve for Wood so a mental health expert could be appointed to examine him.
"Given his long-standing history of mental illness, Gov. Perry must not allow Mr. Wood's execution to go forward without allowing the court to rule on this rudimentary due process right," said Andrea Keilin, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, a legal group that represents death row inmates.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles already has refused, on a 7-0 vote, to recommend the governor grant clemency to Wood, whose lawyers compared his case to another convicted Texas killer, Kenneth Foster. A year ago, Foster won a commutation from the parole board, Perry agreed and Foster now is serving a life sentence.
Foster also was condemned under the law of parties, although Perry's explanation for commuting Foster was that Foster and his co-defendant were tried together on capital murder charges for a slaying in San Antonio.
In Wood's case, he and Reneau were tried separately.
At least a half dozen other Texas inmates have been executed under the law of parties.
Reneau and Wood knew Keeran, 31. Wood's lawyers said his mental illness allowed him to be easily manipulated by Reneau, who they called "the principal actor" in the shooting.
Lucy Wilke, the Kerr County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Wood, described him after his 1998 trial as "not a dummy" and called the slaying "cold-blooded, premeditated."
Evidence showed Reneau entered the store before dawn on Jan. 2, 1996, and fatally shot Keeran once in the face with a .22-caliber pistol. Then joined by Wood, they robbed the store of more than $11,000 in cash and checks. Both were arrested within 24 hours.
According to court records, Wood was waiting outside the store and came in after Keeran was shot, then both fled with the store safe, a cash box and a video recorder containing a security tape showing the robbery and slaying. Evidence showed the pair had planned the robbery for a couple of weeks and unsuccessfully tried recruiting Keeran and another employee to stage a phony robbery."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)