Competency to Be Executed

A North Carolina case looks eerily similar to two cases we've seen in Texas over the issue of competency to be executed.  Guy LeGrande was allowed to represent himself in his 1996 capital murder trial, as was the case with Scott Panetti in Texas. Now, Le Grande faces a December 1 execution date.  The Houston Chronicle carries an AP report on the case.  LINK

He has since allowed others to represent him, although he refuses to help. He met only briefly with new attorney James Coleman before demanding the Duke University law professor leave.

"He's clearly mentally ill and his mental illness caused him to make decisions and take actions that resulted in a death sentence in this case," Coleman said.

Beyond the issue of whether LeGrande should have been allowed to represent himself, his defenders question whether the state should execute an inmate they believe is mentally ill. Both the American Bar Association and American Psychiatric Association oppose executing defendants with severe mental disorders.

A defense psychiatrist who recently examined LeGrande's records concluded that he is psychotic, Coleman said. LeGrande's attorneys say he client believes that the governor has already pardoned him and that he will receive billions of dollars from the state once freed.

Civil rights leaders nationwide have also pleaded for clemency for LeGrande, arguing that his case parallels that of Robert Bacon, who won clemency in 2001 from Easley.

In both cases, an all-white jury sentenced a black defendant to death while allowing a white co-defendant _ Tommy Munford in LeGrande's case _ to avoid a death sentence. Easley has not granted clemency since he commuted Bacon's sentence.

Panetti's case is currently on appeal over the issue of whether or not he is competent to be executed.  The Supreme Court addressed the issue in 1986, in the case of Ford v. Wainwright, ruling that execution of the insane is unconstitutional.  However, many observers believe there is a serious need for the Court to re-examine the issue in light of developments over the past two decades and revise the standards for competency.  More on Panetti's case is here.

In May 2004, Texas executed Kelsey Patterson, another severely mentally ill death row inmate.  Courts ruled that under the Supreme Court's standards, Patterson was competent to be executed.  The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 5-1 to recommend that Patterson's death sentence be commuted to life in prison in light of his condition.  Governor Rick Perry rejected the Board's recommendation, and Patterson was executed.

The American Bar Association's position against executing certain classes of severely mentally ill individuals, previously endorsed by a number of mental health organizations, is here.