The StandDown Texas Project

An Infographic on Scott Panetti's Case

This infographic touches on several issues in Scott Panetti's case in a visual fashion:

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Clemency Petition Filed in Scott Panetti's Case

"Clemency Petition Filed Today: Execution of Scott Panetti Would 'Cross a Moral Line'," is a news release issued by attorneys and advocates for Scott Panetti.  Here's the full text:

Today, dozens of prominent organizations and individuals from Texas and across the country called on the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Rick Perry to stop the December 3rd scheduled execution of Scott Panetti, a severely mentally ill man who has suffered from schizophrenia for more than 30 years.

Mr. Panetti, who represented himself at his capital trial wearing a cowboy costume, will be executed unless a commutation is granted or a court intervenes.  Mr. Panetti has suffered from serious mental illness for over 30 years. He was hospitalized more than a dozen times for psychosis and delusions in the 14 years leading up to the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. At his 1995 trial he attempted to call over 200 witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the Pope, and Jesus Christ.

The commutation requests were submitted to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Perry as part of a clemency petition filed by Mr. Panetti’s attorneys this morning, which states: “The case of Scott Louis Panetti is a judicial disaster that has attracted national and international outrage – and for good reason.  Evidence of his incompetency runs like a fissure through every proceeding in his case – from arraignment to execution…The execution of Scott Panetti would cross a moral line.”

The clemency petition can be accessed here.

Letters urging clemency in Mr. Panetti’s case come from several of the nation’s and Texas’ leading mental health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, Mental Health America and Disability Rights Texas; experts on mental health issues in the law; a former Texas Governor, state Attorneys General, U.S. Attorneys and others with experience in the criminal justice field; 50 Evangelical faith leaders, including Rev. Sam Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, Lynn Hybels of the nationally prominent Willow Creek Church, Gabriel Salguero of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition and other faith leaders; Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation; and the American Bar Association, among others.

“As law enforcement and criminal justice professionals, we are deeply troubled that a capital sentence was the result of a trial where a man with schizophrenia represented himself, dressed in a costume,” stated the letter signed by 30 prominent individuals, including former federal and state court judges and prosecutors, Department of Justice officials, parole board members, and other notable legal practitioners from Texas and across the country. “We come together from across the partisan and ideological divide and are united in our belief that, irrespective of whether we support or oppose the death penalty, this is not an appropriate case for execution.”

The first time Mr. Panetti showed signs of being afflicted with a psychotic disorder was in 1978, over 14 years before he shaved his head and killed his in-laws, Amanda and Joseph Alvarado.  During his multiple hospitalizations, doctors diagnosed him with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

Detailed information about Mr. Panetti’s medical history can be found in a mental illness timeline starting in 1978 that shows how Mr. Panetti’s mental health degenerated over the years, including how in 1986, the Social Security Administration made a determination that Mr. Panetti was so disabled from schizophrenia that he was entitled to government benefits.

In 1986, Mr. Panetti first succumbed to the delusion that he was engaged in spiritual warfare with Satan. In an affidavit his first wife signed to have him involuntarily committed, she testified that he was obsessed with the idea that the devil was in the house. He engaged in a series of bizarre behaviors to exorcize his home, including burying his furniture in the backyard because he thought the devil was in the furniture.

“In his state of severe mental illness, Mr. Panetti should never have been permitted to represent himself at his capital trial,” states the letter from leading national and Texas mental health organizations and experts. “…[T]he fact that he did not have counsel renders his conviction and sentencing even more problematic in light of the delusional nature of his illness.”

In 2004, Texas tried to execute Mr. Panetti, but a federal judge court stayed the execution and the United States Supreme Court ultimately found the Fifth Circuit’s standard for determining competency to be executed unconstitutional in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Notwithstanding that decision, Texas continued to contest Mr. Panetti’s competence to be executed. In 2013, the Fifth Circuit again found him competent to be executed – despite the District Court’s findings that he has a severe mental illness and suffers from paranoid delusions.

On November 6, 2014, the trial court in Kerrville, Texas refused a request by Mr. Panetti’s attorneys to withdraw or modify the execution date so that they would have a meaningful opportunity to contest his competency for execution

Mr. Panetti has not had a competency hearing in nearly seven years. He has a fixed delusion that his execution is being orchestrated by Satan, working through the State of Texas, to put an end to his preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“The execution of Scott Panetti would be a cruel injustice that would serve no constructive purpose whatsoever,” states the letter signed by more than 50 notable Evangelical Christian faith leaders, including 20 from Texas. “When we inflict the harshest punishment on the severely mentally ill, whose culpability is greatly diminished by their debilitating conditions, we fail to respect their innate dignity as human beings.”

A complete listing of the clemency letters and more information about Mr. Panetti’s case, including legal documents, video footage, and more, can be accessed.

"When Texas Descends Into Hell: The Vulnerability of Scott Panetti," is by Rev. Jeff Hood, a Baptist Pastor.

On October 30, I woke up and walked into the bedroom of our three young children. Our oldest children are twin boys. Their little bodies were contorted around stuffed animals and producing loud snores. I watched them sleep for a little while. The room was still dark. I walked further in. Our youngest was curled up in a ball. I watched him sleep for a moment. Shuffling over to a rocker, I sat for a while and let my mind wonder in the twilight.

The previous day, the State of Texas surprisingly announced that it would execute Scott Panetti on December 3. I wondered what Scott looked like when he was the age of my children. I imagined a mother watching her child sleep and dreaming about all that he child might become. I can imagine that Scott's mother never thought her child would be a paranoid schizophrenic capable of killing his in-laws in front of his estranged wife and child. The more I sat and thought, the more I couldn't help but look to my own children and wonder if they would ever commit such a crime. Who can say? I can only know what I would do if they did. I would love them.

We descend into hell when we leave love behind. The State of Texas is quickly descending into the hell of a loveless decision.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Questions Still Swirling About Scott Panetti's Case

That's the title of an editorial in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Putting aside for a moment the argument over whether Texas ought to be executing people who have mental illness — and the state should not be doing that — how can Texas officials be so disorganized that they fail to notify a condemned man's lawyers?

"This raises troubling moral questions about why the State of Texas is rushing to execute this mentally ill man," Kase said.

Yes, it does. Panetti's crime was heinous, and for that he must be accountable. But there are serious questions around this case that haven't been adequately answered. Texas authorities need to answer them before it's too late for Panetti.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

More News Coverage of Scott Panetti's Execution Date

The Texas Tribune posts, "Lawyers Seek New Exam for Death Row Client," by Terri Langford.

A schizophrenic Texas death row inmate set for execution in December hasn't been evaluated in nearly seven years, and his mental state may not allow him to be legally put to death, his attorneys argued in an emergency court motion filed Monday.

Scott Louis Panetti, 56, was sentenced to death for the 1992 shooting deaths of his in-laws, Joe Gaitan Alvarado Jr. and Amanda Carrion Alvarado of Kerr County. At the time, Panetti was a diagnosed schizophrenic and collected federal disability checks because he could not work. 

"The currently scheduled execution date must be withdrawn," lawyers Gregory W. Wiercioch of the University of Wisconsin Law School and Kathryn M. Kase of the Texas Defender Service in Houston told the Kerr County court where Panetti was convicted.

"Lawyers for death-row inmate say they learned of execution date in news article," is by Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal.

Lawyers for a death-row inmate who represented himself at trial dressed in a purple cowboy suit say they learned of his execution date in a newspaper article.

An emergency motion for a hearing filed on behalf of Texas inmate Scott Panetti says his lawyers learned of the Dec. 3 execution date from an Oct. 30 newspaper article that was published two weeks after the date was set. The motion says Panetti has a compelling constitutional claim that he is not competent to be executed.

Defense lawyer Kathryn Kase tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that prosecutors never contacted her about the date. “We have telephones and working emails,” she said. “They know how to get ahold of us.”

"'Delusional' Killer Scott Panetti Asks Texas to Delay Execution," is by Tracy Connor of NBC News.

Lawyers for a Texas killer went to court Monday to try to get his execution day changed, complaining he hasn't had a competency hearing in seven years even though he's so delusional he thinks Satan is orchestrating his death. Scott Panetti's attorneys also contend the state set a Dec. 3 date for his lethal injection in secret and didn't tell them for two weeks. The Texas attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.

Scott Panetti, 56, fatally shot his in-laws in front of his estranged wife and their kids in 1992. He represented himself at trial, where he wore a cowboy outfit and tried to subpoena President Kennedy, Jesus Christ and Anne Bancroft. His lawyers say he doesn't even understand why he's being executed and thinks the devil is punishing him for preaching, but the state contends he has enough of a grasp on the situation to be put to death.

"Lawyer for Wisconsin native learned of execution order in news article," is by Meg Kissinger of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Hayward native Scott Panetti learned the date of his impending execution two weeks after the order had been signed when one of his lawyers read about it in a newspaper, a motion filed Monday in Texas alleges.

"It was appalling to pick up the newspaper and learn this," said Kathryn Kase, who has represented Panetti for 10 years.

The Thursday story in the Houston Chronicle said an execution date had been set for Dec. 3. The order — submitted by District Attorney E. Bruce Kerr — was signed by the judge on Oct. 16.

Kase said no one from Kerr's office or the court contacted her office.

"We have telephones and working emails," she said. "They know how to get ahold of us."

Kerr was not available for comment Monday. Lucy Wilke, Kerr's assistant, said he had instructed her not to comment.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Emergency Motion for Hearing Filed in Scott Panetti Case

The following statement has been issued by Scott Panetti's attorneys:

Today, an Emergency Motion for Hearing was filed in state court by attorneys for Scott Panetti, a severely mentally ill man scheduled for execution in Texas on December 3, 2014, asking the State withdraw or modify the execution date so that Mr. Panetti is given a meaningful opportunity to contest his competency for execution. Mr. Panetti has not had a competency hearing in nearly seven years.Astonishingly, it is noted in the Motion that Mr. Panetti's attorneys learned of the execution date from the newspaper on October 30th -- two weeks after the date was set, apparently in secret, with no notice whatsoever to the lawyers who have represented Mr. Panetti for nearly a decade.

"The State has an unequivocal, constitutional duty in every case to pursue justice -- not a conviction, not an execution, not a win at all costs.  By not informing attorneys that an execution date had been set, the State has fallen woefully short of that duty in Scott Panetti's case,” said Greg Wiercioch, counsel of record for Mr. Panetti.  “The State's conduct would be disturbing if this were a routine case.  But it is unconscionable in a death penalty case where the District Attorney himself did not believe Scott Panetti was competent to represent himself at trial,” said Mr. Wiercioch.

The Motion, filed in trial court in Kerrville, Texas, can be accessed at the link.

The Motion states, “[t]here can be no serious dispute that, because of Mr. Panetti’s long-standing and incurable psychotic disorder, he meets the threshold showing that entitles him to the appointment of two experts and an evidentiary hearing under Article 46.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,’ and that “[t]he U. S. Supreme Court held – in Mr. Panetti’s own case – that the procedure for determining a prisoner’s competency for execution must comport with due process under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” (page 2)

“Mr. Panetti’s severe mental illness has infected every stage of his capital case. His execution now would cross a moral line and serve no penological purpose. It is reasonable and necessary for a competency hearing to take place before the State wrongly executes someone who is clearly incompetent for execution,” said Kathryn Kase, co-counsel for Mr. Panetti.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Additional News Coverage of Scott Panetti's Execution Date

The Guardian reports, "Texas sets execution date for mentally ill killer Scott Panetti," by Tom Dart.

Texas is preparing to execute a mentally ill man who dressed as a cowboy at his trial and attempted to subpoena Jesus Christ, John F Kennedy and the Pope.

On Wednesday, a day after Miguel Paredes became the 10th – and at the time it was thought final – Texas prisoner to be put to death this year, the state gave Scott Panetti an execution date of 3 December. The 56-year-old shot his parents-in-law to death in 1992 in front of his estranged wife and their three-year-old daughter.

Long and complex legal battles have taken place since he was convicted in 1995 as a succession of courts have ruled Panetti is competent to be executed even though there is no question that he is mentally ill and suffers from paranoid delusions.

A schizophrenic man who had been hospitalised 14 times before the murders of Joe and Amanda Alvarado in the Texas Hill Country, he insisted he represent himself at trial, where his only defence was insanity. He said that during the crime he was under the control of a hallucination he called “Sarge”. He wore a purple cowboy suit, rambled incoherently, fell asleep and made a threatening gesture at the jury. Court documents show his standby attorney described Panetti as “bizarre”, “scary” and “trance-like” and that the trial was a “judicial farce”.

"Lethal injection date set for Scott Panetti," is by Meg Kissinger of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, who has covered the case for years.

Scott Panetti, a Hayward native whose death row case drew national attention around the issue of protecting the rights of mentally ill defendants, has been scheduled to die by lethal injection Dec. 3 in Texas.

Panetti, 56, has won stays of execution before. He was a day from being executed in 2004 when that order was stopped. The new execution date was made public Thursday.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Panetti's death sentence for the murder of his wife's parents 15 years earlier. The court found that Panetti had insufficient understanding of why he was being put to death. Panetti said he believed he was being executed not for the killings but for preaching the Gospel to his fellow death row inmates.

The 5-4 ruling was considered a rebuke of the lower court's decision, but it stopped short of establishing a new standard for competency.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  All prior coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Texas District Court Sets December Execution Date for Scott Panetti

"Inmate described as delusional gets execution date," is the AP report, via the Austin American-Statesman.

A Texas death row inmate whose attorneys contend is so delusional that he can't understand why he was convicted and condemned has been scheduled for execution.

Scott Panetti, 56, was set for lethal injection in Huntsville on Dec. 3, according to a Gillespie County judge's order received this week by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which carries out executions.

Panetti, a native of Hayward, Wisconsin, has a history of mental problems and his case has been to the U.S. Supreme Court at least three times. The most recent was early this month when the justices refused to review his latest appeal. State attorneys have argued he exaggerates some of his symptoms to avoid execution.

"Texas adds 11th killer to 2014 execution list," is by Allan Turner of the Houston Chronicle.

Executions may be scheduled at any time during the year, provided a 30-day period passes between the date the execution was ordered and the date it is carried out. Executions typically are not scheduled around Christmas.

Greg Wiercioch, an attorney for Scott Panetti, has issued the following statement:

"Scott Panetti is not competent for execution and therefore his execution would serve no retributive purpose.  It is unfortunate that an execution date has been set.

“For more than three decades, Mr. Panetti has suffered from severe mental illness. He was allowed to represent himself at his capital trial, wearing a make-believe cowboy outfit and attempting to subpoena Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy. He has a fixed delusion that Satan, working through the State of Texas, is seeking to execute him for preaching the Gospel. His execution would be a miserable spectacle."

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

Related coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

More Commentary on Scott Panetti's Madness

"We're Going to Execute a Man Who Subpoenaed Jesus While Representing Himself Wearing a Purple Cowboy Suit," is by Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones.

Four years before he murdered his in-laws in Texas, Scott Panetti buried some furniture in his yard. The devil, he claimed, was in it. After he was arrested and charged with the killings, Panetti, who has a history of severe mental illness, represented himself at his capital trial wearing a purple cowboy suit. He called himself "Sarge" and subpoenaed Jesus, among other notables. He lost, of course. The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death.

The case made its way though the appeals courts, eventually reaching the United States Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that the state of Texas hadn't adequately evaluated whether Panetti's mental condition allowed him to fully understand the nature of his punishment—a constitutional prerequisite for the death penalty. The court stayed the execution and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Seven years later, Panetti's illness hasn't gone away, but the Supreme Court has given Texas the green light to kill him. The court's decision, announced on October 6 without comment, upheld a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Panetti was sane enough for execution. The appellate court's decision, in turn, was based in part on the opinion of a Florida psychiatrist who has deemed at least three Florida death row inmates with long and well-documented histories of mental illness to be sane enough for the needle.

The details in this story, gleaned from hundreds of pages of court documents and other official filings, indicate that Scott Panetti was no malingerer. He began showing signs of serious mental illness in 1981, back when he was still a teenager. By 1992, he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, delusions, auditory hallucinations, and manic depression, and had been hospitalized 14 times.

Earlier coverage of the case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the competency category index.

The Scott Panetti category index contains all news links and commentary.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Scott Panetti's Condition

"High Court Must Avoid a 'Miserable Spectacle'," is the OpEd by Ron Honberg for the National Law Journal.  He's with the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Scott Panetti has been diagnosed with severe mental illness for more than 30 years. His mental illness manifested itself at least a decade before the murder of his wife's parents, a crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas. It is uncontested that Panetti's delusions center on his belief that his execution is being orchestrated by Satan, working through Texas officials, to stop him from saving the souls of the condemned.

Seven years ago, in Panetti v. Quarter­man, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's standard for assessing competency for execution was unconstitutional. When directed to reconsider Panetti's case, the Fifth Circuit again held that he was competent for execution — despite the district court's findings that he has severe mental illness and suffers from paranoid delusions about the reasons for his execution. Panetti's petition for a writ of certiorari is now pending at the Supreme Court.

The principle that it is unconstitutional to execute individuals who are insane is ingrained in American law. In Ford v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court in 1986 observed: "Whether its aim be to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding, or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction [against executing the insane] finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment."

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  Related coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

George Parnham on the Case of Scott Panetti

"Scott Panetti is not competent for execution," is the title of an OpEd written by Houston attorney George Parnham in today's Austin American-Statesman.  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

Do you remember Scott Panetti? He is pretty unforgettable. Panetti is the man with paranoid schizophrenia who was allowed to represent himself, while on trial for his life, wearing a make-believe Western cowboy outfit. He insisted on defending himself and attempted to summon dozens of witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the pope and even Jesus Christ.

Panetti’s delusional courtroom performance was not simply painful to watch. It was a mockery of civilized society.

If Texas executes Panetti, it would be another travesty. He would go to his death convinced that he is being executed for preaching the gospel, not for the 1992 murder of his in-laws in Kerr County. The U.S. Supreme Court should intervene and prevent this gross injustice. The court needs to announce a clear standard for determining competency for execution that will provide guidance for the lower courts.

For more than 30 years, Panetti has suffered from severe mental illness. In the decade leading up to the crime, he was hospitalized 14 times for schizophrenia, manic depression (bipolar disorder), auditory hallucinations and delusions of persecution and grandiosity. At one point, he buried his furniture in his backyard because he believed the devil was in his furniture. By all accounts, his mental condition has gotten worse in prison.

Earlier coverage begins at the link.  Related coverage is in the Scott Panetti category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in a 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the ruling in 2007 in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

More on the Indiana Case of Michael Overstreet

"Judge to decide if Michael Overstreet is competent to be executed," is by Tim Evans of the Indianapolis Star.

Convicted killer Michael Dean Overstreet, likely the next Indiana death row inmate in line to be executed, will be in court this week in an effort to escape that fate.

St. Joseph Superior Court judge Jane Woodward Miller will preside over a four-day hearing that begins Tuesday in South Bend on claims by Overstreet’s attorney that his client is not competent to be executed.

The Indiana Supreme Court last fall granted Overstreet’s request for a new hearing on whether he is competent to be executed for the 1997 killing of Kelly Eckart, 18, of Boggstown. Attorneys for the state had opposed the request for the new hearing, and instead asked the court to set an execution date.

In court documents, Overstreet's public defender Steve Schutte said mental health professionals have determined the convicted killer “does not have, and does not have the ability to produce, a rational understanding of why the State of Indiana plans to execute him.”

"Doctor’s evaluation: Killer doesn’t know what death means," is the Daily Journal report by Steve Garbacz.

Due to his illness, Overstreet isn’t able to comprehend that a lethal injection would lead to death and what death means, so he can’t be executed under federal law, Dr. Rahn Bailey said in a report for Overstreet’s defense.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the issue in its 2007 ruling in Panetti v. Quarterman, also via Oyez.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.

More coverage from Indiana is in the preceding post.

News Coverage of Pennsylvania Hearing

The Allentown Morning Call posts, "Judge orders further psychiatric evaluation of Michael Ballard," by Riley Yates and Pamela Lehman, following this morning's hearing in Pennsylvania.

Mass murderer Michael Eric Ballard's hearing Friday rejecting any appeals of his death sentence began with Ballard objecting to an evaluation by a psychiatrist.

Ballard was brought before Northampton County Judge Emil Giordano in a wheelchair, cuffed, with a large legal folder in his lap.

Giordano said he wanted a psychiatrist to again evaluate Ballard to make sure he was competent to waive any appeals, but Ballard objected. Ballard said during his trial, he had been evaluated by a number of mental health experts and said another evaluation was not necessary.

And:

Despite a series of questions, Giordano said he wanted Ballard again evaluated to determine his competency. The judge appointed Dr. Frank Dattilio, a forensic psychologist from Salisbury, to evaluate Ballard's competency, despite his objections.

Giordano also appointed Ballard's trial attorneys, Michael Corriere and James Connell, to continue to represent him, and issued an order barring the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia and other anti-death penalty lawyers from entering their appearances without permission of the court.

Earlier coverage of the Pennsylvania case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the volunteer category index.

From Nevada

The Las Vegas Sun features a Q&A with Assistant Federal Public Defender Michael Pescetta, in, "A look inside Nevada’s death row with a federal defense attorney."  It's by Ana Ley.

Today, his office represents more than half of the 83 men sitting on death row.

Capital punishment has faced scrutiny nationwide in recent months after drug experimentation apparently led to a series of botched executions in three states. The topic should gain even more traction in the Silver State as officials scramble to assemble a mandated legislative audit of the state death penalty by Jan. 31, 2015.

Pescetta chatted with the Sun this week about the death penalty. His answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Earlier coverage from Nevada begins at the link.

John Middleton Appeal Moves to Supreme Court

Reuters posts, "U.S. Appeals court lifts stay of execution for Missouri inmate," by Carey Gillam.

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday vacated a stay of execution for a triple murderer that Missouri wants to execute before midnight.

The order takes effect after 6 p.m. (2300 GMT) and gives inmate John Middleton the opportunity to petition for a rehearing of his case, according to the ruling issued by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 8th Circuit ruling in Middleton v. Roper is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Appeals court vacates stay in Missouri execution; appeal filed to Supreme Court," is the AP report filed by Jim Salter, via the Republic.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the execution could proceed, but Middleton's attorneys appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Missouri law allows a 24-hour window for executions. That means if Middleton has not been executed by midnight Thursday, the Missouri Supreme Court would need to set a new execution date.

Earlier coverage of John Middleton's case begins at the link.

8th Circuit Panel Lifts Missouri Stay for John Middleton

The 8th Circuit panel ruling in Middleton v. Roper is at the link.

"Appeals court overturns stay of execution for Missouri inmate," is Jim Salter's AP filing, via the Greenfield Daily Reporter.

A three-judge federal appeals court panel on Tuesday overturned a stay of execution for a condemned Missouri man, hours before he was scheduled to be put to death.

John Middleton was set to die at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday for killing three people in rural northern Missouri in 1995 out of fear that they would tell police about his drug dealing.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry ruled early Tuesday that there was enough question about Middleton's mental health that a hearing should determine if he is fit to be executed, writing in her ruling that he "has provided evidence that he has been diagnosed with a variety of mental health disorders, and has received a number of psychiatric medications over the years." Courts have established that executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional.

Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned the stay. Middleton's lawyers appealed that ruling. They also contend in a separate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that Middleton is innocent of the killings.

Middleton, 54, would be the sixth man put to death in Missouri this year — only Florida and Texas have performed more executions in 2014 with seven each.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, "Appeals court removes stay of execution for murderer John Middleton," by Jeremy Kohler.

Koster, in arguing against Middleton's petition for a stay, had argued that the condemned killer could have made the incompetency claim "long before today. But he chose not to." In his appeal to the 8th Circuit, Koster argued that Middleton was not entitled to a stay from the federal courts because he had not exhausted remedies in state court. He also argued that the claim of incompetence has no merit.

"The time for enforcement of Missouri’s criminal judgment against John Middleton is long overdue," Koster wrote.

The appeals panel agreed with Koster that Middleton had not properly exhausted his claim of incompetency within the state court system, and said it had been an abuse of discretion for Perry, a federal judge, to order a stay.

"Appeals Court Removes Stay, Clearing The Way For Missouri Execution To Proceed,"is by Chris McDaniel for St. Louis Public Radio.

"Middleton has provided evidence that he has been diagnosed with a variety of mental-health disorders and has received a number of psychiatric medications over the years," Judge Catherine Perry wrote in her order. "[Other] inmates indicate that he frequently talks to people who are not there and tells stories that could not have had any basis in reality."

In removing her stay, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel disagreed -- and said the matter should have first been left to state courts.

"Middleton has not presented his present claim to the Supreme Court of Missouri or attempted to invoke the procedures that are available under state law," the conservative appeals court wrote. "The Missouri court has had no opportunity to consider the claim addressed by the district court or to apply the available Missouri procedures to Middleton’s present allegation of incompetency to be executed."

Middleton's attorneys will appeal to the full 8th Circuit, and then likely to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would be the state's sixth execution this year, despite the inmate's insistence -- and new evidence -- that suggests he is innocent.

Earlier coverage of John Middleton's case begins at the link.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the issue in its 2007 ruling in Panetti v. Quarterman, also via Oyez.

Mentally Ill Death Row Inmates in California

Today's Los Angeles Times reports, "San Quentin plans psychiatric hospital for death row inmates," by Paige St. John.

Under court pressure to improve psychiatric care for deeply disturbed death row inmates, state officials are moving quickly to open a 40-bed hospital at San Quentin prison to house them.

The court-appointed monitor of mental health care in California's prison system reported to judges Tuesday that about three dozen men on death row are so mentally ill that they require inpatient care, with 24-hour nursing.

For now, they are being treated in their cells, but the state plans to have a hospital setting ready for them by November, according to documents filed Tuesday in federal court.

And:

In December, after weeks of courtroom testimony on the treatment of about 10 unidentified death row prisoners, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ordered the state to provide condemned inmates access to inpatient psychiatric care. The court files show negotiations and planning began almost immediately.

Karlton also ordered mental health screenings of all 720 condemned men at San Quentin. Those evaluations concluded in late May with the identification of 37 condemned men for admission to the psychiatric unit.

AP coverage is, "California plans death row mental health unit," by Don Thompson.  It's via San Diego Source.

Responding to a federal court order, California prison officials plan to build a mental health unit for condemned inmates at San Quentin State Prison, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

The planned construction responds to a judge's finding in December that mentally ill inmates on death row lack proper treatment.

The court-appointed special master who oversees prison mental health care said in a 72-page report that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation informed him earlier this month that it would create a 40-bed inpatient mental health program for inmates awaiting execution, to be known as the San Quentin Psychiatric Inpatient Program.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link.  Related posts are in the mental illness category index.

Holmes Trial Has Become Argument for Plea Bargain

That's the title of an editorial published in today's Aurora Sentinel, in Colorado.  It's subtitled, "This much money and energy should be spent on preventing the next massacre, rather than seeking unattainable revenge for this one."  Here's the beginning:

The effort to seek justice for victims of the Aurora theater shooting is no longer a court trial. It is now a wildly expensive and ineffective bureaucratic contraption seeking to serve itself, rather than some notion of closure and fairness.

To understand just how wrong the trial against admitted shooter James Holmes has gone, you have to look at the facts of the case and the events so far.

The evidence against Holmes acting by himself to plan and carry out the July 20, 2012, slaughter inside a crowded Aurora theater was overwhelming just hours after police found him outside the Century 16 theater — and even just minutes after he killed 12 and wounded about 70 more people.

Through his attorneys, Holmes admitted to the crime.

It was then, when Holmes’ attorneys offered up a plea, that the case began to go awry. Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler turned back the plea deal, announcing he would seek the death penalty against Holmes.

Since then, Brauchler’s office has already spent a whopping $667,000 on prosecuting the case, according to records obtained by Channel 4 News in Denver. It’s unknown how much the defense has spent so far, but they have enlisted the aid of California trial and jury consultants that without doubt, will not come cheap.

Earlier coverage of the James Holmes case begins at the link.  Also available, more recent news from Colorado.

More From Bob Autobee

"'The Death Penalty is a Hate Crime': Bob Autobee Speaks Out to Spare Life of Son’s Killer," is the segment of today's Democracy Now.  There is video at the link; a transcript will be available later today.  Here's the introduction:

We are joined by Bob Autobee, a Colorado resident who is opposing the death penalty for the prisoner who killed his son Eric, a prison guard, in 2002. During the original trial, Autobee supported a death sentence for Edward Montour. But the Colorado Supreme Court threw out Montour’s sentence in 2007 because it was imposed by a judge, not a jury as is required.

A decade later, Autobee has now changed his mind. In the new murder trial that begins today, he wants to make a victim’s statement to the jury asking them not to impose the death penalty — but the judge in the case has barred him from doing so. Autobee describes why he opposes the death penalty in this case, and why he wants to see it abolished overall.

"You’ve got to be willing to heal, and you’ve got to let the hate go," Autobee says. "To me the death penalty is a hate crime, a crime against humanity." We are also joined by Democracy Now! producer and criminal justice correspondent Renée Feltz, who notes that 80 percent of Colorado voters actually passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 that enshrines the rights of victims to make a statement in cases like Autobee’s.

Today's Denver Post reports, "Opening arguments to begin in death penalty case against Montour," by Jordan Steffen.

Edward Montour spent four years on death row for attacking corrections officer Eric Autobee from behind and beating him to death with a soup ladle in a prison kitchen.

Now — nearly 11 years after he originally pleaded guilty — a Douglas County District Court jury must decide whether Montour was sane when he killed Autobee in 2002.

Much like the death penalty case against James Holmes, the gunman who killed 12 people and injured dozens more at an Aurora movie theater in July 2012, the focus of the trial against Montour will not center on guilt. Montour, like Holmes, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and his attorneys have repeatedly stated in court that Montour's attack on Autobee was unprovoked and undeserved.

Instead, Montour's trial will probably revolve around events and circumstances that took place more than a dozen years ago.

Opening arguments are scheduled to begin Wednesday morning. A jury and six alternatives were selected Monday.

Earlier coverage of this Colorado case begins at the link.

In Colorado

"Judge orders 2nd sanity exam in theater shooting," is the AP report filed by Dan Elliott, via the San Francisco Chronicle.

The man accused of killing 12 people in a Colorado movie theater shooting must undergo a second sanity evaluation by the state mental hospital because the first was "incomplete and inadequate," a judge has ruled.

Wednesday's decision means a months-long delay in James Holmes' case, which has already been in the courts for a year and a half.

The key finding of the first evaluation, whether Holmes was sane at the time of the attack, has not been made public, but prosecutors asked for the second review, claiming the first was flawed. They are seeking the death penalty, and Holmes' fate likely hangs on whether the jury decides he was insane at the time of the shooting.

And:

In his 50-page ruling, District Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. ruled the first review was based on insufficient data and reached some unsupported conclusions. Much of his explanation was redacted, with all or parts of 26 pages blacked out.

Holmes' first evaluation was conducted last summer. Samour said it took three months and the psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, interviewed Holmes for 25 hours.

"Judge orders new psychiatric exam for James Holmes," is by John Ingold in the Denver Post.

James Holmes will undergo a second court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, after the judge overseeing the Aurora movie theater murder case ruled that the first exam was "incomplete and inadequate."

In an order issued Wednesday, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Carlos Samour agreed with prosecutors that the psychiatrist who performed the first exam, Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, didn't sufficiently explain how he reached his conclusions about Holmes' sanity on the night of the shooting.

"[A]lthough Dr. Metzner collected and documented a lot of factual information as part of his examination, he offered little rationale for some of his opinions and findings," Samour wrote. "... The bases for Dr. Metzner's opinion regarding the issue of sanity are just as important to the truth-finding process as the opinion itself."

However, Samour rejected the prosecution's request that the new evaluation be conducted by doctors hired by the prosecution. Instead, Samour ordered officials at the Colorado Mental Health Institute, who appointed Metzner to conduct the first evaluation, to pick a new independent doctor for the second evaluation.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.  You can also jump to news of the Holmes case.

Progress on Solitary Confinement

Today's New York Times reports, "New York State in Deal to Limit Solitary Confinement," is by Benjamin Weiser.  The entire Agreement Regarding Solitary Confinement is also available.  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning:

New York State has agreed to sweeping reforms intended to curtail the widespread use of solitary confinement, including prohibiting its use in disciplining prisoners under 18.

In doing so, New York becomes the largest prison system in the United States to prohibit the use of disciplinary confinement for minors, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represented the three prisoners whose lawsuit led to the agreement cited in court papers filed on Wednesday.

State correction officials will also be prohibited from imposing solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure for inmates who are pregnant, and the punishment will be limited to 30 days for those who are developmentally disabled, the court filing says.

The agreement imposes “sentencing guidelines” for all prisoners, specifying the length of punishment allowed for different infractions and, for the first time in all cases, a maximum length that such sentences may run, the civil liberties group said. No such guidelines exist, except in cases involving certain violent and drug-related offenses.

“New York State has done the right thing by committing to comprehensive reform of the way it uses extreme isolation, a harmful and inhumane practice that has for years been used as a punishment of first resort” in prisons, said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the organization.

Several states, including Colorado, Mississippi and Washington, had begun to look into how to reduce the use of solitary confinement; a Senate judiciary subcommittee is holding a hearing next week on the issue.

Related posts are in the incarceration category index.

Kentucky Trial Ordered Over Execution Procedures

"Judge calls for trial in Ky. lethal injection case," is by Brett Barrouquere of Associated Press.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

A judge in Kentucky on Friday called for a trial to resolve disputed aspects of how the state handles an inmate in the days leading up to an execution.

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd issued a three-page order setting a pre-trial conference for Sept. 22, at which time he plans to set a date for a full trial over how the state proposes to carry out a lethal injection.

Any trial would not focus on the state's plans to use one or two drugs to carry out a death warrant. Shepherd previously ruled that Kentucky's plans on that front appeared to pass constitutional muster and Friday's order made no mention of the issue. Instead, the judge took issue with how the state assesses condemned inmates' mental abilities in the weeks leading up to an execution.

In December, Shepherd raised concerns about how the state would determine if an inmate is mentally disabled, if the public and defense attorneys see enough of the execution preparation before the lethal injection begins and if the inmate has access to counsel in the hours leading up to an execution.

Kentucky is barred from executing any inmates under an injunction issued by Shepherd in 2010. In December, the judge opted to keep that injunction in place. Multiple death row inmates challenged Kentucky's use of three drugs to carry out a lethal injection. As a result, the state has switched to using one or two drugs.

Earlier coverage from Kentucky begins at the link.  Due to the court injunction, Kentucky currently has a moratorium on executions.

Bob Autobee Protests Death Penalty Prosecution During Jury Selection

Today's Denver Post publishes the editorial, "Robert Autobee's appeal for killer is admirable."

We can't recall seeing anything quite like it: The father of a murder victim not only coming out against capital punishment for his son's killer, but actually protesting pursuit of the death penalty in front of prospective jurors.

But that's what Robert Autobee, father of slain corrections officer Eric Autobee, did Monday outside the Douglas County Courthouse.

"My son wouldn't want the death penalty," he told a line of potential jurors, according to a Denver Post article by Jordan Steffen.

Autobee believes the death penalty is wrong, wastes money and does not deter violent crime. And we agree, although based on polling from last year, it appears a majority of Coloradans are of another mind on the issue.

"Potential jurors in death penalty case hear protests from victim's dad," is the Post's news coverage by Jordan Steffen.

Hundreds of potential jurors lined up outside the Douglas County Courthouse on Monday morning as jury selection started in the death penalty case against Edward Montour, who killed corrections officer Eric Autobee more than a decade ago.

As they huddled in freezing temperatures, Eric Autobee's father, Bob, walked up and down the long line carrying a photo of his son and protesting the decision to seek the death penalty against the man who killed him.

And:

A total of 3,500 summonses were sent out, and jury selection is expected to take as long as two months. Opening arguments will likely begin in March.

Up to 600 potential jurors were expected at the courthouse on Monday, and hundreds more will arrive throughout the next couple of weeks.

Autobee did not shout at the crowd but instead calmly spoke with them. His heavy message was suspended in frozen breaths as eyes darted toward and away from him.

Westword posts, "Bob Autobee forgives Edward Montour for son's murder as death-penalty trial begins," by Alan Prendergast.  There is video at the link.

With only one execution logged in the past 45 years, Colorado's death penalty is practically on life support itself -- and about to be severely tested by three high-profile cases in coming months. Yet the man who might, in effect, pull the plug on the practice in our state isn't some steely eyed nun or bleeding-heart governor, but an unlikely convert to the cause: Bob Autobee, the father of a corrections officer bludgeoned to death by an inmate in 2002.

Over more than a decade since then, Bob Autobee has experienced firsthand the interminable delays and ordeals of a capital case.

"Potential jurors begged to reject death penalty in Colorado prison killing," is AP coverage, via the Colorado Springs Gazette.

The father of a corrections officer killed more than a decade ago carried a sign Monday along a line of potential jurors, urging them not to impose the death penalty if they convict the inmate accused of the killing.

Bob Autobee also carried a photo of his son, with a message to prosecutors that it is wrong to seek death against Edward Moutour in the 2002 death of Officer Eric Autobee.

"My son wouldn't want the death penalty," he told the shivering crowd. "Do you believe in the death penalty? You're going to have to decide."

Earlier coverage of Bob Autobee begins at the link.

Supreme Court Rules in Kansas v. Cheever

The Supreme Court ruling in Kansas v. Cheever is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Court: Kan. death sentence shouldn't be thrown out," is the initial AP report.

The Supreme Court says a lower court should not have overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man who admitted killing a Kansas sheriff.

The high court Wednesday unanimously overturned the Kansas Supreme Court's decision to throw out Scott Cheever's death sentence for the 2005 fatal shooting of Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels.

The Kansas court said Cheever's rights against self-incrimination were violated by prosecutors who used a court-ordered mental evaluation from a different trial against him.

Cheever's own expert argued that methamphetamine use had damaged his brain. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that because Cheever's side raised the brain damage issue, prosecutors were entitled to use testimony from the mental health expert from the other trial. That expert said Cheever killed because of an anti-social personality, not because of brain damage.

Earlier coverage of the Kansas case begins at the link.

Texas CCA Orders Ford Hearing for Marcus Druery - Updated

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling in Druery v. Texas is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Today, in a unanimous decision, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that death row prisoner Marcus Druery is entitled to a hearing to determine his competency to be executed. On July 27, 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Mr. Druery's execution to consider his appeal for a hearing to determine whether his psychotic disorder renders him incompetent. The case is now remanded for competency proceedings to the 85th Judicial District Court in Brazos County.

Kate Black, Marus Druery's attorney, issued the following statement in response:

"We are pleased that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found sufficient evidence of Marcus Druery's severe mental illness to warrant competency proceedings. Much of the evidence of Mr. Druery's mental illness comes from the State's own mental health professionals, who have repeatedly diagnosed Mr. Druery as schizophrenic, paranoid and delusional. A full hearing is critically important to establish that Mr. Druery lacks a rational understanding of his execution. We are confident that the Brazos County District Court will give Mr. Druery's case the thorough and fair consideration it deserves in order to ensure that Texas does not execute a severely psychotic man."

"Bryan Death Row Inmate Gets New Competency Hearing," is the KBTX-TV post by Steve Fullhart.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled a Bryan man whose execution was put on hold deserves a competency hearing to determine whether he is fit to die for his crimes.

Marcus Druery had originally been due to die August 1, 2012 for shooting death of Skyyler Browne, who was murdered on Halloween 2002. Druery's lawyers argued the 33-year-old had a schizophrenia diagnosis, and lacked a rational understanding that he was going to die despite a factual understanding.

In the United States, an inmate must be aware of their execution and why they are being put to death prior to the execution.

Judge J.D. Langley of Brazos County's 85th District Court denied a defense motion for a competency hearing on July 24, 2012. Three days later, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Druery's execution until they could further review the case.

Wednesday, the court ordered the defense-requested competency hearing to take place in Langley's court, saying "the trial court erred in weighing the credible evidence of Appellant's incompetency against credible evidence of his competency to determine that he had not made a 'substantial showing' of incompetency."

The Bryan-College Station Eagle posts, "Brazos County death row inmate to get competency hearing," by Maggie Kiely.

At various hearings concerning Druery’s mental state in 2012, defense attorneys Kate Black and Greg Wiercioch argued that their client met the criteria for incompetency and doesn’t have a “rational understanding” of why he’s to be executed, which would make him ineligible for the death penalty.

Langley denied Druery’s request for competency proceedings in July 2012 after finding that “statements that the defendant made in the courtroom” show that he did understand why he was going to be executed.

But the appellate court unanimously disagreed, stating in an opinion released Wednesday that Langley “erred in weighing the credible evidence of appellant’s incompetency against credible evidence of his competency to determine that he had not made a ‘substantial showing’ of incompetency.”

While on death row, Druery has reported hearing “voices” giving him demands and has repeatedly insisted his cell is wired, according to court documents.

In recent years, Druery has been diagnosed as schizophrenic by more than one psychiatrist — including a doctor hired by the defense who concluded Druery’s delusional beliefs kept him from fully understanding his punishment.

Update - The Texas Tribune posts, "Court Orders New Mental Competency Hearing in Death Penalty Case," by Brandi Grissom.

Druery's lawyers contend that his psychotic disorder renders him incompetent for lethal injection. In their unanimous decision to send the case back to the trial court, the nine judges on the appeals court panel wrote that Druery had made a "substantial showing of incompetency to be executed" and that he is entitled to both a hearing and the appointment of at least two mental health experts to determine his competency.

"Much of the evidence of Mr. Druery's mental illness comes from the State's own mental health professionals, who have repeatedly diagnosed Mr. Druery as schizophrenic, paranoid and delusional," Kate Black, a lawyer at the Texas Defender Service who represents the inmate, said in a statement. "A full hearing is critically important to establish that Mr. Druery lacks a rational understanding of his execution."

Earlier coverage of Marcus Druery's case begins at the link.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the issue in its 2007 ruling in Panetti v. Quarterman, also via Oyez.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.

From Oklahoma

"Okla. prosecutor wants 'guilty but insane' verdict," is the AP report by Tim Talley.

An Oklahoma prosecutor wants to create a new option for verdicts in criminal cases where the defendant claims he was insane when the crime was committed.

State law permits criminal defendants who claim they are not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric illness or mental disability to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. But Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater says that outcome does not hold a defendant accountable.

"That does not sit well with victims' families — or me," Prater said. "It seems to add insult to injury. The family members and everyone else knows that this person committed the act."

And:

D. Michael Haggerty II, a defense attorney in Durant and president of the Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said a person who is legally insane is unable to form the required criminal intent to commit a crime and cannot be held accountable.

"If someone is in fact insane, any proposal that purports to 'hold accountable' someone who by definition is not accountable for their actions is a dangerous concept. Because the criminal justice system is about holding people accountable for things they have done — punishing the guilty, releasing the innocent," Haggerty said.

The article notes that no legislation has been drafted.

Related posts are in the mental illness category index.

 

Colorado Parents Again Call on DA Not to Pursue Death in Son's Killing

Denver alt-weekly Westword posts, "Read parents' letter asking DA to stop trying to kill their son's killer," by Alan Prendergast.

It was eleven years ago today -- October 18, 2002 -- that inmate Edward Montour Jr. attacked Eric Autobee, a 23-year-old correctional officer, in the kitchen of the Limon prison, fatally bludgeoning him with a heavy ladle. To mark that grim anniversary, the victim's parents have made a startling plea to the prosecution to resolve the still-open case -- a plea that insists the best way to serve justice and honor their son's memory would be by dropping the state's relentless but much-misfired attempts to obtain the death penalty against Montour.

"It is our understanding that Mr. Montour will likely accept a plea to be imprisoned for the rest of his life in a maximum security unit without the possibility of a parole," Bob and Lola Autobee state in their letter to Eighteenth Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler. "In the meantime, our family sits without any resolution or finality, suffering so that our son's image and identity can continue to be used by you, not because you love our son like we do, but because you have greater political ambitions to obtain a death penalty verdict."

Montour, who has a long history of mental health issues, was already serving a life sentence for killing his eleven-week-old daughter when he attacked Autobee without warning; it was the first inmate killing of an officer in the Colorado Department of Corrections in 73 years. Montour pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, but the Colorado Supreme Court threw out his death sentence in 2007 because it hadn't been imposed by a jury. Prosecutors have been seeking to get the death penalty reinstated in his case ever since. As reported here last year, the drawn-out legal wrangle alienated Autobee's parents; Bob Autobee, a retired correctional officer himself, denounced the interminable costs and delays involved and came out publicly against the death penalty as it is applied in Colorado, saying it wouldn't fix the violence problems in the prison system. Earlier this year, after prosecutors refused to accept a deal in which Montour would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence, he was allowed to withdraw his prior guilty plea.

The Autobees letter to District Attorney George Brauchler is available at Scribd.

Earlier coverage of the Autobees call to drop the death penalty prosecution begins at the link.

Brauchler is also pursuing the death penalty against James Holmes, and has talked of challenging Colorado Govenor John Hickenlooper because of the reprieve Hickenlooper issued in another Colorado death penalty case.

Also available, more recent coverage from Colorado.

Plea Agreement in Pending Delaware Capital Case

"Man who killed NCCo cop Szczerba pleads guilty but mentally ill," is by Sean O’Sullivan of the Wilmington News Journal.

As the man who fatally stabbed her policeman husband admitted to what he had done on Monday, Kathy Szczerba, flanked by two New Castle County Police officers, held a tissue to her face.

David Salasky, 34, pleaded guilty but mentally ill to the first-degree murder of Lt. Joseph Szczerba on Sept. 16, 2011 and more than a dozen other felonies.

The plea means that Salasky, who was high on the designer drug bath salts at the time of his encounter with the 44-year-old Szczerba, will be in either a mental institution or prison for the rest of his life without the chance of parole.

At sentencing, Salasky faces a minimum mandatory two life terms, plus an additional 153 years in prison. He admitted to two counts of first-degree murder, several weapons charges, third degree burglary, theft, second-degree assault and resisting arrest.

AP coverage is, "Man Pleads Guilty but Mentally Ill in Killing of Officer," via WCAU-TV.

A Wilmington man charged with fatally stabbing a New Castle County police officer has pleaded guilty but mentally ill in the crime.

Thirty-four-year-old David Salasky Jr. entered the plea Monday to first-degree murder in the slaying of 44-year-old Officer Joseph Szczerba (ZER-bah) in September 2011.

Salasky entered the plea as jury selection was under way in a trial. He faces an automatic sentence of two life terms plus an additional 153 years.

Superior Court Judge William C. Carpenter did not immediately set a sentencing date.

"Plea deal reached in Delaware officer's murder," at WHYY-FM NewsWorks.

Attorneys for 34-year-old David Salasky put fourth a plea deal earlier this week and state prosecutors accepted the agreement today before Judge William Carpenter.  Jury selection in Salasky's murder case was scheduled to begin on Monday.

Salasky is accused of fatally stabbing Lt. Joseph Szczerba on Sept 16, 2011. Szczerba, an 18-year veteran of the department confronted Salasky while responding to a car break-in call. The two engaged in a violent struggle before Salasky stabbed Szczerba in the neck with a fixed-blade knife.

Salasky had a previous criminal history and was high on drugs known as "bath salts" during the attack. The Delaware General Assembly passed a law banning the sale of "bath salts" after that fact became known.

Earlier coverage from Delaware begins at the link.

Florida Prepares to Carry Out Rescheduled Execution

"Miami killer Gore to be executed Tuesday," is David Ovalle's report for the Miami Herald.

Twenty-five years after he fatally stabbed and beat a Lauderhill woman, then buried her body in a trash pile, Miami killer Marshall Lee Gore is set to be executed Tuesday.

Gore’s date with death at Florida State Prison in Starke is his fourth scheduled execution.

Twice before, courts halted the executions as his lawyers sought to stave off his death because of questions about Gore’s sanity. Then, in a move roundly criticized, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi rescheduled a September execution date so she could attend a political fundraiser; she later apologized.

And:

Gore’s lawyers said the convicted killer was mentally ill. His execution, they said, would violate a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

AP coverage is, "Execution scheduled at Florida State Prison," via the San Francisco Chronicle.

The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. (Eastern Time)

This is the fourth time Gore's execution has been scheduled this year. Twice, courts put the execution on hold due to insanity claims. Attorney General Pam Bondi's staff also once asked that it be postponed because it conflicted with her political fundraiser.

On Monday, Gore's attorneys asked for a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 49-year-old Gore says he suffers from delusions related to a conspiracy theory in which the purpose of his execution is so that the elite and wealthy people can harvest his organs. Gore has also said he is being targeted by satanic worshippers for human sacrifice, that he hears voices telling him to hang himself and that he was somehow injected with the virus that causes tuberculosis.

The appeals judges sided with a panel of state-appointed mental health experts who concluded Gore's "insanity" was all an act "designed to mislead the panel and avoid responsibility for his past actions."

To date there have been 27 executions in American death penalty states this year; a total of 1,347 post-Furman executions since 1977.

Florida has conducted 78 post-Furman executions since 1979, including four earlier executions this year.

Earlier coverage of Marshall Gore's case and Florida AG Pam Bondi's request that it be rescheduled to accomodate her political fundraiser begins at the link.

tp://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/01/3662498/miami-killer-gore-to-be-executed.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/01/3662498/miami-killer-gore-to-be-executed.html#storylink=cpy

News Coverage of Ohio Task Force Meeting

"Group wants to exclude severely mentally ill from death penalty," is by  Alan Johnson for the Columbus Dispatch.

People suffering from severe mental illness who commit murder should be excluded from the death penalty, a state task force studying capital punishment recommended yesterday.

The task force doesn’t want people with severe mental illness to go unpunished. But the panel will urge the General Assembly to pass a law preventing a death sentence from being handed down on someone with a diagnosable, severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, at the time he or she commits the crime.

The Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty is a creation of the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio State Bar Association.

Despite yesterday’s recommendation, there is a deep divide among task force members about what constitutes serious mental illness and whether the current legal system does an adequate job of screening for it.

And:

Terry Russell, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Ohio, said such action is long overdue. He began advocating for a mental-illness exclusion in 1999 when Wilford Berry, who struggled with serious mental illness his entire life, became the first Ohioan to be executed in 36 years.

“We knew this man was severely mentally disabled,” Russell said. “It is inhumane to execute someone like that.”

AP coverage is, "Panel: Weigh mental state in capital cases," by Andrew Welsh-Huggins.  It's via the Martins Ferry Times Leader.

Lawmakers should debate taking the death penalty off the table for killers with serious mental illness even before they're charged, under a recommendation approved Thursday by a committee examining capital punishment in the state.

Mental illness has long been a factor in deciding whether someone should be executed in Ohio, but the new proposal deals with eliminating it as an option upfront.

The proposal, approved 15-2 by the Ohio Supreme Court task force, recommends that lawmakers take up the question once the committee issues its final report early next year.

Cleveland appeals court Judge Kathleen Keough called it "an issue of common decency."

"A person suffering from serious mental illness should not be subject to the death penalty," Keough said.

The concept is a long way from becoming law. The recommendation first would need legislation, and that would be followed by a long debate in the General Assembly over the definition of serious mental illness.

And:

Cleveland defense attorney John Parker, chairman of the subcommittee that made the mental illness recommendation, said members of his committee felt it was time to put the issue before lawmakers.

Many members of the task force, which includes defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges and lawmakers, were skeptical of the concept but agreed to recommend its consideration.

Earlier coverage of the Ohio Task Force meeting begins at the link; also available, other Ohio coverage.

More information is at the Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio's Death Penalty website.

Ohio Death Penalty Commission Meeting Today

"Execution of mentally ill is issue for task force," is Alan Johnson's report in today's Columbus Dispatch.  Here's an extended excerpt.  If you are interested in mental health or Ohio issues, I would recommend reading the entire article.

Inmates diagnosed with serious mental illness could not be executed under a recommendation being considered by a state death-penalty task force.

A host of other recommendations, including requiring audio- or videotaping of all Ohio Parole Board clemency proceedings, are on the agenda at today’s meeting of the Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty. The multiagency panel was established by Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and the Ohio State Bar Association.

A subcommittee voted 5-0-1 that the full task force should urge state legislators to pass a law to “exclude from eligibility for the death penalty defendants who suffer from ‘serious mental’ illness at the time of the crime.” The recommendation relies heavily on the legal opinion of former Ohio Supreme Court Judge Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, a longtime advocate for the mentally ill who left the court at the end of 2011.

Stratton testified at the committee’s June meeting about mental illness and the death penalty. The task force also cited Stratton’s opinion in a 2011 murder case in which she said the “time had come to re-examine whether we as a society should administer the death penalty to a person with a serious mental illness.”

She noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against executing the mentally disabled and juveniles but has not dealt with the mentally ill.

Stratton said that “the line should be drawn by the General Assembly, not by a court.” And that line would determine exactly what constitutes a “serious” mental illness.

Mental Health America, a national group, estimates that up to 10 percent of all U.S. Death Row inmates have severe mental illness.

And:

The task force also will look at recommendations to record all parole board clemency proceedings, expand jury pools to include licensed drivers as well as registered voters, and require judges to give jury instructions in “plain English” so they are more easily understood.

The task force, which convened nearly two years ago, will wrap up its meetings in November and begin drafting a final report to the governor and state legislators.

AP coverage is, "Ohio death penalty review panel to meet again," via the Huntington Herald-Dispatch.

The committee examining capital punishment in Ohio and reviewing possible changes to the state's death penalty law is ready to meet again.

The task force convened by Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor is starting to wind up its work despite divisions over the role that geography and race play in determining who becomes eligible for the death penalty.

The committee, which meets Thursday in Columbus, recently proposed restricting the use of capital punishment by eliminating cases where an aggravated murder was committed during a burglary, robbery or rape.

Any such change would require lawmakers' approval.

Earlier coverage of the Ohio commission begins at the link; other Ohio coverage begins with the preceding post.

More information is at the Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio's Death Penalty website.

Bob Ray Sanders on the Staley Ruling

"Some measures Texas employs in capital punishment not really sane," is the title of Bob Ray Sanders' latest column in the Sunday Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The more I think about executions in Texas, and the extent to which this state will go in order to kill someone, the more insane I find the very idea of capital punishment.

Before I talk about the latest case of absurdity involving a Texas Death Row inmate from Tarrant County, let me remind you of two other instances in which the state’s actions seemed beyond ludicrous.

And, turning to the Court of Criminal Appeals ruling in Steven Staley's case:

What really ought to happen, as one law professor suggested to the Tribune, is Staley’s sentence should be commuted to life in prison. It not only would be the most humane but also the most cost-effective solution, considering the amount of money already spent on years of appeals, the professor notes.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Too many people in this state are bent on carrying out the barbaric practice of putting others to death, no matter the measures that have to be taken to achieve that.

Earlier coverage of Steven Staley's case and the issue of forced medication begins at the link.

Additional Coverage of the Staley Ruling

Today's Dallas Morning News reports, "State’s top criminal court says trial courts can’t force death row inmates to take medication," by Todd J. Gillman.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that trial courts lack the authority to order involuntary medication to restore competency for execution. The Supreme Court has ruled that condemned inmates must understand what death means and why the state wants to kill them before an execution can be carried out.

The court did not address whether forcibly medicating someone so he can be executed violates the U.S. Constitution. But the Staley case highlights a longstanding debate about the appropriateness of restoring someone’s mental health only to kill him.

“It’s time for us to recognize that it’s not civilized to forcibly medicate someone to execute them,” said John Stickels, Staley’s appellate attorney. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Without the drugs, Staley would be mentally incompetent and would thus linger on death row with no prospect of execution.

“A criminal defendant should not be able to avoid a sentence because he refuses to take his medication,” said Chuck Mallin, chief of the appellate division for Tarrant County. “The court should have the authority to enforce its own judgment.”

Mallin said he was disappointed that the Court of Criminal Appeals didn’t address the constitutional question, which has been bouncing around state courts across the country for years.

“Had they addressed the constitutional issue we could have taken the case up … to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Mallin said prosecutors may ask for a rehearing. “We’re going to consider every option,” he said.

The issue is a difficult one for both doctors and lawyers, said Texas Tech law professor Brian Shannon, who specializes in criminal law and the mentally ill. For example, forced medication is allowed to make a defendant competent enough to participate in his own trial.

Earlier coverage of Steven Staley's case and yesterday's CCA ruling begins at the link.  Related posts are in the competency category index.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  The Court revisited the issue in its 2007 ruling in Panetti v. Quarterman, also via Oyez.

An Update on Steven Staley

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling in Staley v. Texas is available in Adobe .pdf format.  CCA Presiding Judge Keller and Judge Meyers both wrote dissents.

"Court Rules Judge Didn't Have Right to Forcibly Medicate Death Row Inmate," is Jordan Smith's post at the Austin Chronicle.

A split Court of Criminal Appeals today ruled that a Fort Worth court did not have the legal right to force a mentally ill death row inmate to be medicated in order to make the defendant competent to be executed.

The ruling, by a 5-4 majority of the court, sends the case of Steven Staley vacates the trial court's order forcing his medication, but is silent on whether the Texas Constitution would absolutely forbid the execution of someone forcibly drugged or whether Staley is too ill to be executed at all.

Staley has been on death row for 22 years for the 1989 murder of Robert Read in the aftermath of a botched robbery attempt by Staley and two accomplices at a Fort Worth Steak & Ale restaurant. After moving to death row in 1991, his mental health began a marked deterioration, according to court records, and his first execution date, in February 2006, was ultimately stayed because he was too ill to be executed. The state subsequently argued that it should be allow to force Staley to take medication, in order to both ease his suffering from the effects of his paranoid schizophrenia and to enforce the judgement of death. Staley's defense argued that to medicate him under such circumstances would be to create an "artificial competence" that would not pass legal muster for execution, and that the law did not allow a judge to order such forced medication. The court disagreed and ordered Staley forcibly medicated with – a process that, at times, according to the ruling, saw Staley restrained in order to be injected with drugs. For six years the state medicated Staley with about a 60% success rate of forcible medication, according to the majority opinion.

After years of medication Staley was again found competent and set for execution in May 2012; again, his defense contested.

The Texas Tribune posts, "Court: Death Row Inmate Can't Be Forcibly Medicated," by Brandi Grissom.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a ruling Wednesday declaring that Steven Staley, a mentally ill death row inmate, cannot be forcibly medicated for the purpose of making him competent for execution; and without medication, the judges decided, he is not competent to be executed.

"We hold that the evidence conclusively shows that appellant's competency to be executed was achieved solely through the involuntary medication, which the trial court had no authority to order under the competency-to-be-executed statute," Judge Elsa Alcala wrote in the court's majority opinion. 

And:

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association both consider it ethically unacceptable for doctors to provide treatments to patients when the purpose is for execution. And state supreme courts in Louisiana and South Carolina have ruled that forcibly medicating patients so they can be executed violates those states' constitutions.

The court stayed Staley's execution in May 2012 to give the arguments in the case more consideration. In Wednesday’s ruling, the court did not answer the constitutional questions about medicating Staley so that he could be competent for execution. Instead, the judges ruled that Salvant did not have authority to order Staley to medicated. And, without that medication, they ruled, he was not competent for execution.

"Texas court rules death row inmate can't be forcibly medicated to prepare him for execution," is AP coverage, via the Republic.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that a convicted killer with a history of mental illness cannot be forcibly medicated for the purpose of making him competent for execution.

The court ruled Wednesday in favor of 51-year-old death row inmate Steven Staley, who was convicted for the 1989 shooting death of a Fort Worth restaurant manager during a botched robbery.

The same court in May 2012 granted a reprieve for Staley two days before he was scheduled to die by lethal injection.

Ealier coverage of Steven Staley's case and long history of severe mental illness begins at the link.

Texas Volunteer

"Death row cellphone smuggling figure seeks to end appeals," is by Mike Ward in the Austin American-Statesman.

Richard Tabler, whose threatening calls from a smuggled cellphone prompted an unprecedented lockdown of the Texas prison system five years ago, is asking to end his court appeals and be executed.

“My victim’s family members are being denied the justice they deserve” Tabler, 34, said in a letter to the American-Statesman received Tuesday. The letter parallels an Aug. 13 request he made to the federal court that is handling his appeal in a Killeen double murder case.

So far, his lawyer is opposing Tabler’s request to drop his appeals.

Tabler faces execution for the fatal shootings of Mohammed-Amine Rahmouni, 28, and Haitham Zayed, 25, in 2004 in a remote area of Killeen. Evidence showed Rahmouni was the manager of a strip club who banned Tabler from his place and Zayed was a friend of Rahmouni.

Tabler also has acknowledged killing two dancers from the club. He was charged with those slayings, but was never tried.

He made headlines in October 2008 when he was busted in his death row cell for using a smuggled cellphone to call several people, including state Sen. John Whitmire, who heads the committee that monitors prisons. Those calls prompted a lockdown of the entire prison system that turned up hundreds of contraband cellphones and prompted the installation of security checkpoints and electronic screening equipment at many of Texas’ state prisons.

And:

His appellate attorney, Marcia Widder of Atlanta, referred the Statesman to filings she recently made to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Mr. Tabler previously sought on multiple occasions to waive proceedings in the district court so that he could be executed,” Widder said in a Sept. 6 filing. Based on previous court rulings denying his request, she noted, Tabler’s latest request “should be denied and this case should continue to move forward.”

No execution date has been scheduled for Tabler, whose appeals likely still have years to run. In past court filings, his lawyers have raised questions about whether he is mentally competent to make such a decision.

Earlier coverage of Richard Tabler begins at the link.

Sanity Report Filed Under Seal in Colorado Case of James Holmes

"Court gets sanity report in Colo. theater shooting," is the AP report by Dan Elliott, via the Denver Post.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Colorado theater shootings are getting their first look at a long-awaited opinion from a state psychiatrist on whether defendant James Holmes was legally insane when he killed 12 people and injured 70.

The report from the state mental hospital is secret, and prosecutors and defense lawyers cannot speak outside court about it because of a gag order. Its contents may be discussed in open court or written about in a motion.

Filed with the court on Friday, the report won't be the final word on Holmes' mental state—that will be up to the jury in Holmes' trial next year.

But it will be a critical piece of evidence as jurors consider whether Holmes should be found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed indefinitely to the state hospital, or convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison or death by lethal injection.

The report will say whether the psychiatrist who led the evaluation believes Holmes meets Colorado's legal definition of insanity: the inability to tell the difference between right and wrong because of a mental disease or defect.

And:

Holmes underwent a mandatory sanity evaluation at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo this summer after he entered his insanity plea.

Earlier coverage of the James Holmes case begins at the link.

James Holmes' Lawyers Expand Challenge to Colorado Death Penalty

"Lawyers for James Holmes seek to throw out the death penalty," is the Denver Post report by John Ingold.  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning:

Lawyers for Aurora movie theater shooting defendant James Holmes want the judge in the case to declare Colorado's death-penalty laws unconstitutional.

In multiple motions filed Friday and made public Tuesday, lawyers for Holmes say the state's death-penalty laws are unconstitutionally arbitrary, that the jury-selection process unfairly skews the jury pool, and that the punishment is sought and used so infrequently in Colorado as to make it cruel and unusual.

"Imposition of the death penalty is rare, unusual, freakish, and inconsistently applied throughout the State of Colorado," the defense lawyers write in one motion.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Holmes, whose lawyers have admitted that he killed 12 people and wounded dozens more in an attack on the Century Aurora 16 movie theater last summer. Holmes has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

A number of the motions are based on the findings of a study by two University of Denver law professors — a study commissioned by the defense team in another murder case — that found that almost all murder cases in Colorado are eligible for the death penalty.

According to the study, 92 percent of the 544 first-degree murder cases in Colorado between 1999 and 2010 were eligible for the death penalty. But prosecutors pursued the death penalty at trial in only five of those cases, according to the study. Based on those findings, Holmes' lawyers argue in the motions that Colorado's laws don't limit the use of the death penalty enough to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

They also argue that, when the death penalty is used, it is applied inconsistently. The only district attorney's office to take death penalty cases to trial in the past decade is the 18th Judicial District attorney's office, the same one prosecuting Holmes.

AP coverage is, "Holmes' lawyers broaden challenge to death penalty," by Dan Elliott, via the San Francisco Chronicle.

Battling to save their client's life, lawyers for theater shooting defendant James Holmes broadened their attack on the death penalty, saying in motions released Tuesday that the sentence is so unevenly imposed in Colorado and so rarely carried out that it is unconstitutional.

The lawyers also argued that death penalty opponents should be allowed to serve on Holmes' jury, and that victims of the shooting shouldn't be permitted to testify when the jury is deciding punishment.

Separately, the judge on Tuesday delayed a possible showdown hearing for a Fox News reporter over whether she has to reveal her confidential sources for a story about Holmes. The delay gives the reporter time to hear whether a court in her home state of New York will reject a Colorado subpoena seeking the names.

"Attorneys for Movie Massacre Suspect Challenge Colorado's Death Penalty Laws," is by Sam Reynolds for Courthouse News Service.

In a second motion , the defense claims that Colorado's punishment for capital murder is cruel and unusual as defined by state and federal law.

"In measuring and assessing contemporary standards of decency, one important consideration is whether there is a decline in the use of a practice," the second motion states. "Throughout the country and in Colorado, the death penalty is in steep and consistent decline.

"Across the country, states are abandoning the death penalty. In 2004, the courts declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional in New York. In 2007, New Jersey repealed its death penalty law, with New Mexico following suit in 2009, Illinois in 2011, Connecticut in 2012, and Maryland in 2013. In several other states, there has been a de facto moratorium on executions for many years. In 2013, a majority of Nebraska lawmakers voted to repeal the death penalty, but the bill died because of a filibuster by opponents.

"Even the very architects of the modern capital scheme have given up. In 2010, the American Law Institute withdrew its support for the model capital sentencing stature it had drafted, citing 'intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.'"

Death sentences have declined by 56 percent nationwide since 1999. Colorado has executed just one inmate since 1967, the second motion states.

The Denver Post also reports, "Fox News reporter wins delay in crucial theater shooting hearing," also by John Ingold.

A Fox News reporter facing possible jail time in a dispute over a story she wrote about the Aurora theater shooting has been granted a delay in a crucial hearing.

Jana Winter, who is based in New York, had been scheduled to return to court Sept. 30 for a hearing. Now, she is scheduled to return on that date only so that her subpoena can again be postponed — this time to Jan. 3.

The hearing could decide whether Winter will be ordered to testify about her sources for a story she wrote about the case.

Earlier coverage of James Holmes' case begins at the link.

Fifth Circuit Deems Scott Panetti Competent - for Now

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling in Panetti v. Stephens is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Panetti Sane Enough For Execution; At least for now, inmate cleared for death," is by Jordan Smith for the Austin Chronicle.

For the second time in nearly a decade, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Scott Panetti, a schizophrenic sent to death row for a 1992 double murder, is sane enough to be executed. Whether that means Panetti is actually closer to a date with the executioner, however, remains to be seen.

Panetti was convicted and sentenced to death for the Sept. 8, 1992 slaying of his in-laws, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, at the couple's home in Fredericksburg. Panetti had been hospitalized in connection with his illness at least 11 times prior to the slaying and was last released just two months before he killed the Alvarados. When he turned himself into police the afternoon of the murders he told investigators that "Sarge," a recurring auditory hallucination, was responsible for the crime. Panetti was heavily medicated when deemed competent to stand trial, but by the time he actually went to court for the crime he was off his meds and insisted on representing himself, a request granted by Kerr County District Judge Stephen Ables. At trial, Panetti wore a purple cowboy suit and subpoenaed hundreds of witnesses, including Jesus Christ and Anne Bancroft. Despite his bizarre and disturbing behavior, he was ultimately convicted in 1995.

Since then, however, Panetti's case has made it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court twice as questions persist about whether he is actually sane enough to be executed. At issue, in part, is whether Panetti has "rational understanding" of why he is to be executed. Panetti has repeatedly acknowledged that the state says it intends to kill him for the murder of the Alvarados, but that he believes that is a ruse to hide a satanic plot to kill him in order to stop him from preaching the "gospel of the Lord King."

And:

Still, when, or whether, Panetti will ultimately be executed is unclear. Because competency is fluid, what may appear to be malingering today may in fact be madness tomorrow.

Earlier coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.

The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  In April 2012, I added the competency category index.  Earlier posts dealing with compentency are available under the Scott Panetti category index.

An Update on the Holmes Case in Colorado

The Coloradoan posts the AP report, "Holmes lawyers again challenge death penalty," by Dan Elliott.

Lawyers for theater shooting suspect James Holmes launched another legal assault on Colorado’s death penalty laws Friday, arguing they don’t set clear standards and that they make it too hard for jurors to weigh mitigating factors.

They also complained that Arapahoe County District Judge Carlos A. Samour is ruling on defense motions too quickly and asked him to allow them to argue their points “fully and fairly.”

Holmes is accused of opening fire in a theater full of people watching a Batman movie in Aurora in July 2012, killing 12 and wounding 70. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to multiple charges of murder and attempted murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

In two motions totaling 32 pages of arguments, defense lawyers argued the death penalty law is unconstitutional and asked Samour to rule out execution for Holmes.

In addition to questioning the standards of the laws, the defense said the statutes allow fewer options for defendants to appeal the death penalty if they choose trial by jury than if they choose trial before a judge, without a jury.

"James Holmes' lawyers call Colorado death penalty law unconstitutional," is by John Ingold for the Denver Post, via the Canon City Daily Record.

Lawyers for Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes have filed two motions challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's death penalty laws, in a preview of a densely legal fight to come.

One motion argues that Colorado's system denies defendants whose death sentences are decided by juries the same kind of appellate review that defendants who go to trial before just a judge receive. Another motion says the way juries are instructed to consider and decide death sentences results in arbitrary decisions.

"The meaning of the statute is open to almost instantaneous drastic change, depending on the case involved," Holmes' lawyers argue in the latter motion. "The statute thus violates the cruel and unusual punishment and due process clauses of the United States and Colorado constitutions."

Hearings on death penalty-related issues in the case are scheduled to take place in December, and the motions — filed Friday — hint at how complex those debates will be. Prosecutors have not yet responded to the most recent motions. Holmes' attorneys have until Aug. 30 to file more motions related to the death penalty.

Earlier coverage of James Holmes' case begins at the link.

There is also political news by Holmes prosecutor, the Arapahoe County District Attorney.  The Daily Caller posts, "Colorado DA vows to remind voters of Hickenlooper’s ‘weak leadership’," by Greg Campbell.

Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler hasn’t decided whether he will run for governor of Colorado in 2014, but either way he’ll keep reminding voters of incumbent Gov. John Hickenlooper’s decision to grant convicted mass murderer Nathan Dunlap an indefinite stay of execution.

Earlier coverage of Nathan Dunlap's case and George Brauchler's political pronouncements, at the links.

Continued Commentary on the Execution of John Ferguson

Tobias Winright writes "John Errol Ferguson, Serious Mental Illness, and Capital Punishment," for the Huffington Post. He is an Associate Professor of Theological Ethics at Saint Louis University. 

In "Florida Ignores the Supreme Court," (August 4, 2013) the New York Times editorial board calls on states to "adhere to the Constitution" when implementing the death penalty -- and the U.S. Supreme Court to act when states fail to do so. Specifically, the execution of John Errol Ferguson in Florida on August 5th raises questions about the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities and serious mental illness. In the view of the New York Times Editorial Board, Ferguson "is clearly ineligible for execution under the Constitution." Ferguson, who brutally murdered eight people and who has been on death row for over three decades, had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He believed that he is the "Prince of God" and that he is being executed because he "can control the sun." His case brings to the fore a problem that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to address, namely, the execution of persons with severe mental illness -- an issue another New York Times editorial, "A Stay of Execution," did a better job of highlighting over a year ago. 

In the 1986 Ford v. Wainwright ruling, it was held that the Constitution's Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, prohibits the execution of insane persons. In the 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling, the execution of persons with intellectual disablilities was similarly deemed unconstitutional. The Court argued that "because of their reasoning, judgment and control of their impulses... [persons with intellectual disabilities] do not act with the same moral cuplability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct" (536 US 2002). According to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), an intellectual disability originates before the age of eighteen and is characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. The Atkins decision applies only to people with intellectual disabilities, not to convicted persons who suffered from a serious mental illness at the time of their offense. 

On this point, in the recently published Where Justice and Mercy Meet: Catholic Opposition to the Death Penalty, editors Vicki Schieber, Trudy D. Conway, and David Matzko McCarthy write: "The Eighth Amendment has been interpreted as forbidding the executuion of persons who are unaware of their punishment and the reasons why they are being punished. Condemned death row inmates must have a rational understanding of what is occuring. Many mentally ill persons can meet this standard" (p. 207).

"Justice and mental illness," is the Everett Herald editorial. 

The death penalty is as random and capricious as the violence it seeks to punish. No matter. In Washington, public sentiment remains pro-execution, and the political class barometers accordingly. 

Death-penalty limits have tracked with evolving norms. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Roper v. Simmons that it was unconstitutional for states to impose the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18. The majority justices embraced an "evolving standards of decency" test established in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia, which determined that executing the mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 

The latter decision on mental capacity was brought into focus Monday when Florida executed John Ferguson, a mentally ill killer (with the emphasis on capacity and not equating retardation with mental illness.) The National Association for Mental Illness filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on the Florida Supreme Court and circuit court's poor understanding of the science of mental illness. Ferguson, who had schizophrenia, was deemed fit by the circuit court because he understood the details of his trial and conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the stay of execution. 

"The tragedies of John Ferguson's original crimes are compounded now by an additional tragedy -- one in which the legal system failed to recognize established medical understanding of serious mental illness," said Ron Honberg, NAMI's national director of policy and legal affairs.

"Ashton: EU opposed to Ferguson execution," by Karafillis Giannoulis for New Europe.

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton expressed her regret for John Ferguson execution in the US State of Florida on August 5. 

John Ferguson convicted of murdering eight people in Miami-Dade County and a rape in the late 1970s and he was executed Monday night at the Florida State Prison, despite his lawyers' claim that he suffered from schizophrenia. Ferguson was in jail for more than three decades. 

Today Ashton stated, “it was with deep regret that I learnt that Mr John Ferguson was executed on August 5 in the State of Florida. A plea by Mr Ferguson's lawyer calling for the execution to be commuted, mentioning a 40-year history of paranoid schizophrenia, was turned down. The European Union recognises the serious nature of the crime involved and expresses its sincere sympathy to the surviving family and friends of the victims. However, the EU opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances and calls for a global moratorium as a first step towards its universal abolition. With capital punishment, any miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system is immune, represents an irreversible loss of human life.” 

According to the US Policymic website, despite previously ruling that the execution of the mentally ill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court refused to intervene.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Continued Commentary on the Execution of John Ferguson

"EU Calls For Moratorium On Death Penalty After Florida Schizophrenic's Execution," from RTT News.

The European Union has called for a global moratorium on capital punishment in the wake of the execution of John Ferguson in the US State of Florida.

The 65 year-old man was executed on Monday at Florida State Prison despite a plea by mental health organizations to stop it, saying that executing Ferguson would violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires an individual to have a rational understanding as to why they are being executed.

A plea by Ferguson's lawyer calling for the execution to be commuted, mentioning a 40-year history of paranoid schizophrenia, was turned down.

EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton on Wednesday said "The European Union recognizes the serious nature of the crime involved and expresses its sincere sympathy to the surviving family and friends of the victims." However, the High Representative said "EU opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances." She called for a global moratorium as a first step towards its universal abolition. "With capital punishment, any miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system is immune, represents an irreversible loss of human life,'' the statement added.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.  Related posts are in the international categoy index.

Continued Commentary on the Execution of John Ferguson

Scott Lemieux writes, "SCOTUS's Meaningless Death Penalty Rules," for the American Prospect.  He's an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose in Albany, New York.

Monday evening, the state of Florida executed John Errol Ferguson. This was not an act of injustice because Ferguson was innocent—he brutally killed eight people. It was an act of injustice because Ferguson was mentally ill. The Eighth Amendment forbids his execution.

In 2008, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot be executed if he or she is insane at the time of his or her execution. To the extent that the term has meaning, it's hard to imagine that it doesn't apply to Ferguson, who experts have testified has a "genuine belief" that he is the "prince of God" and has the power to control the sun.

And:

This is illustrative of the larger problem with the death penalty: The American criminal-justice system does not appear capable of rationally designating only those most clearly culpable of heinous crimes for execution. It remains true, in the memorable phrase of Justice Potter Stewart, that capital punishment as applied by the states is "cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual." Some people are executed while others found guilty of more horrible crimes in the same state are not, and some people who are executed are probably not guilty of anything. The Supreme Court's occasional gestures towards making the death penalty less arbitrary have done almost nothing to alter this fact.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Commentary & News Coverage of John Ferguson's Execution

The Atlantic posts, "On the Death of John Ferguson," by Andrew Cohen.

Last week, Justice Antonin Scalia excoriated his colleagues on the United States Supreme Court for not always saying what they mean. Today, with a man's life on the line, with lower courts in full-flowered rebellion, and with a clear and present opportunity to decisively affirm their own precedent, those same justices demonstrated that they don't always mean what they say. The result is yet another shocking example of the hollowness of constitutional doctrine in the Roberts Court era.

Today, the Supreme Court allowed Florida to execute a patently insane man named John Ferguson, a man with 40 years worth of paranoid delusions chronicled by government doctors, a man who considered himself the "Prince of God." This Court allowed the execution to proceed even thought it has for decades purported to forbid the execution of prisoners who are considered too ill, too mentally incompetent, to comprehend the nature of what is being done to them. Not a single justice dissented from the Court's decision to effectively abandon the core of its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Not a single justice explained the retreat. Not one.

The New York Times Taking Note blog posted, "Florida to Execute a Paranoid Schizophrenic," by Jesse Wegman, shortly before the execution took place.

It is fair to ask for clarity in the law, but in the face of uncertainty a state should err on the side of not executing someone. If Mr. Ferguson’s execution has any positive effect, it will be to lead the Court to revisit its rulings on mental illness and the death penalty, and give states the clarity and guidance they need when deciding between life and death.

"Miami killer John Errol Ferguson executed," is by David Ovalle for the Miami Herald.

After a life of bloodshed on the streets of Miami-Dade, then 35 years lingering on Death Row, Miami murderer John Errol Ferguson’s eyes darted to the execution supervisor looming over him.

“I just want everyone to know that I am the Prince of God and I will rise again,” Ferguson mumbled.

Then, the jowly and grayed 65-year-old rustled his feet underneath the white sheet of the gurney, lifted his head and peered intently at the witness window of the death chamber. At 6:01 p.m. Monday, the lethal drugs pumped through his veins, his head rested down, his mouth gasped and life slowly and quietly slipped away.

Ferguson, a killer of eight and at one time responsible for the largest mass slaughter in Miami-Dade history, was pronounced dead 6:17 p.m.

"Convicted mass murderer executed in Florida," is Associated Press coverage filed by Tamara Lush.

The issue of Ferguson's mental stability was a current that ran through his life, and his execution came after months of court appeals. Ferguson's lawyers said their client had a long history of mental illness. The attorneys appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that Ferguson lacked "rational understanding" that he will be executed and that killing him would be "cruel and unusual punishment," violating the Eighth Amendment.

Christopher Handman, Ferguson's lead attorney, said his client's mental illness manifested itself long before the slayings. Ferguson's alcoholic father died when Ferguson was 13, and that's when he started experiencing hallucinations, family members told the attorney. Ferguson also experienced abuse by his mother's boyfriends, then was abandoned by his mom and raised by his sisters in a vermin-infested shack in Miami-Dade County.

When he was 21, he was shot in the head by a police officer in Miami. For several years in the 1970s, Ferguson was in a state mental hospital and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia; he was twice found not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. Handman said one doctor wrote that Ferguson should not be released because he was a danger to himself and to society.

But he was released and, months later, committed the Carol City murders.

Handman said Monday in a statement that he was disappointed the Supreme Court denied a stay.

"Mr. Ferguson is insane and incompetent for execution by any measure," Handman said. "He has a fixed delusion that he is the `Prince of God' who cannot be killed and will rise up after his execution to fight alongside Jesus and save America from a communist plot. He has no rational understanding of the reason for his execution or the effect the death penalty will have upon him."

The Gainesville Sun reports, "Man convicted of 8 murders executed," by Kristine Crane.

His final statement was: “I just want everyone to know that I am the prince of God, and I will rise again.” Then he added, “That's all.”

Ferguson has been repeating that conviction for many years. He began suffering hallucinations in 1965 and was placed in a state mental hospital in 1971, where four years later, court-appointed psychiatrists said that he was “dangerous to himself and others.”

Nonetheless, Ferguson was released from the hospital a year later, “for reasons that are still unclear,” said Ferguson's lawyer, Christopher Handman, of the Hogan Lovells law firm in Washington, D.C.

A year later, in 1977, Ferguson committed the first of two crimes that put him on death row.

"Too mentally ill for death? Florida executes man who lost Supreme Court appeal," is by Warren Richey for the Christian Science Monitor.

Ferguson’s lawyer, Christopher Handman, said he was “gravely disappointed” that the high court had declined to hear the appeal. “Mr. Ferguson has been profoundly mentally ill for four decades…, but is now deemed suddenly and inexplicably cured,” he said in a statement.

Mr. Handman had argued that Ferguson’s case would offer the high court an opportunity to identify with greater precision the parameters judges are to use when deciding whether a condemned prisoner is mentally competent enough to face execution.

Because the death penalty is a form of state-authorized retribution for crime, it is essential that the condemned prisoner appreciate the significance of the punishment, legal experts say. Without that appreciation, the process would lack any retributive purpose and amount to a government killing without an accepted justification. That would violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, according to legal experts.

"Florida executes mass murderer who claimed mental illness," is by David Adams for Reuters, via U.S. News & World Report.

The Guardian posts, "Florida executes mentally ill man despite constitutional prohibition," by Ed Pilkington.

"Inmate with prince of God delusion is executed after asserting he will rise again," by Debra Cassens Weiss for ABA Journal.

"Schizophrenic US murderer executed in Florida," by AFP.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

John Ferguson

The Supreme Court has refused to issue a stay of execution for John Ferguson.  He is scheduled to be executed by Florida at 6:00 pm, tonight.  The Supreme Court's Order in Ferguson v. Crews is available in Adobe .pdf format.

Christopher Handman, Attorney for John Ferguson, has issued a statement on the "U.S. Supreme Court’s Denial of Certiorari Petition and Stay Motion; Tonight’s Scheduled Execution of Mr. Ferguson is Unconstitutional and Unconscionable."  Here's the complete statement:

“We are gravely disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court denied John Ferguson’s request to clarify the standard for evaluating an individual’s competence to be executed and denied his request to invoke the Court’s categorical bar on the execution of the insane. Mr. Ferguson has a documented 40-year history of severe mental illness diagnosed repeatedly by state doctors in state institutions. Mr. Ferguson has been profoundly mentally ill for four decades, pre-dating the crimes for which he is scheduled to be executed, but is now deemed suddenly and inexplicably cured.  

“The prohibition on the execution of the insane dates from early English common law.  The Supreme Court has adopted this categorical exclusion on the execution of the insane.  Mr. Ferguson is insane and incompetent for execution by any measure. He has a fixed delusion that he is the “Prince of God” who cannot be killed and will rise up after his execution to fight alongside Jesus and save America from a communist plot. He has no rational understanding of the reason for his execution or the effect the death penalty will have upon him. Under established Supreme Court precedent, Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), Mr. Ferguson’s execution will violate the Eighth Amendment.”

NAMI has issued the news release, "NAMI's Response to U.S. Supreme Court Decision Allowing Execution of John Ferguson; Mental Illness Ignored," via PR NewsWire.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) issued the following statement by Ron Honberg, national director of policy and legal affairs, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reject an appeal and an emergency stay in the case of John Ferguson—who was executed by the State of Florida on Monday, Aug. 5 at 6:17 p.m. ET.

"NAMI is very disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision. It let stand what we consider to be a violation of constitutional law. The tragedies of John Ferguson's original crimes are compounded now by an additional tragedy –one in which the legal system failed to recognize established medical understanding of serious mental illness.

"While we do not in any way excuse Ferguson's crimes, executing him ignores the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against executing individuals who are too ill to rationally comprehend the reason for their execution."

Last week, NAMI filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court had applied an outdated, unconstitutional standard in reviewing Ferguson's sentence. At that time, Honberg stated that life without parole would be a more appropriate sentence.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Florida Ignores the Supreme Court

That's the title of an editorial in today's New York Times on the Florida case of John Ferguson.

Once again, a state is attempting to put to death a man who is clearly ineligible for execution under the Constitution. Once again, state and federal courts are ignoring uncontested facts by hiding behind the draperies of legal procedure. And once again we are forced to wonder why the Supreme Court is so reluctant to step in when a man’s life is at stake.

John Errol Ferguson is scheduled to die at 6 p.m. Monday in Florida. Mr. Ferguson, who brutally murdered eight people in 1977 and 1978, has sat on Florida’s death row for 34 years. Doctors long ago gave him a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. He believes, among other things, that he is the “Prince of God” and that he is being executed because he “can control the sun.”

The Florida Supreme Court found that he was competent to die, but only by applying a test for mental illness that the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected. A federal appeals court upheld the sentence, relying largely on a federal law that requires a significant degree of deference to state court rulings. Apparently it wasn’t even enough that one of the federal court’s judges found the test Florida applied to be “patently incorrect.”

"Miami mass killer John Ferguson to be executed Monday," is the Miami Herald report by David Ovalle.

Monday’s execution date comes 10 months after Ferguson, 65, was originally slated to die by lethal injection at Florida State Prison in Starke.

His lawyers, who say Ferguson is too mentally ill to fully understand why he is being put to death, successfully earned a stay as the courts explored whether his execution constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Ferguson’s defense team has pointed to Ferguson’s longtime diagnoses as a paranoid schizophrenic and that he believes he is the “Prince of God” to be seated at the “right-hand” of God after his death.

After months of legal wrangling, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in May rejected his appeal, upholding a trial judge’s ruling that Ferguson was competent to be executed.

“That most people would characterize Ferguson’s Prince-of-God belief, in the vernacular, as ‘crazy’ does not mean that someone who holds that belief is not competent to be executed,” according to the federal appeals court’s 65-page opinion.

Ferguson’s lawyers are again appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Bar Association and The National Alliance on Mental Illness have filed briefs asking the nation’s high court to stop Monday’s execution.

If his execution goes through, Ferguson would be the fifth Florida Death Row inmate to be executed since December.

"Lawyer: John Errol Ferguson is ill, shouldn't be executed," is AP coverage, via WTSP-TV.

John Errol Ferguson is set for execution at the Florida State Prison on Monday.

Lawyer Christopher Handman says at least nine state psychiatrists have ruled over the years that Ferguson is mentally ill. Most of those evaluations came when Ferguson was in a state mental hospital in the 1970s.

The 65-year-old Ferguson was convicted of killing eight people in South Florida in two separate incidents.

The Crime Report posts, "The Ferguson Case: When the Law Hasn’t Kept Up With Science," by Ron Honberg of NAMI.

If the State of Florida has its way, John Ferguson, who has been on death row for 34 years, will be executed today at 6 p.m.

If the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, he won’t.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and three state mental health organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court violated constitutional principles in upholding Ferguson’s death sentence.

Ferguson has long lived with paranoid schizophrenia, a mental illness often marked by psychosis, involving hallucinations and delusions. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Panetti v. Quarterman that an individual must have a rational understanding of why he is being put to death and the finality of the death penalty.

However, the Florida Supreme Court failed to honor that rule under the Eighth Amendment—instead applying a standard of mere factual awareness.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Update on John Ferguson

"Jesus Christ, The Death Penalty, And Florida," is Andrew Cohen's post at Esquire's politics blog.  Here's the beginning:

Last month it was Georgia's unseemly attempt to hide from public view the details of its efforts to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded man who is supposed to be exempt from the death penalty by virtue of a 2002 United States Supreme Court decision styled Atkins v. Virgina. This month, it is Florida's brazen attempt to execute John Ferguson, a patently delusional schizophrenic who says he is the “Prince of God" and who is therefore supposed to be exempt from capital punishment by virtue of a 2007 Supreme Court decision styled Panetti v. Quarterman. In the last 11 years, the Supreme Court has said that the Eighth Amendment forbids a state from executing the mentally retarded or the insane. And yet here these two men sit, one (Ferguson) scheduled to be executed on Monday; the other (Hill) waiting to learn his fate.

In each case, state officials have undermined the spirit, if not the letter, of the Supreme Court's commands.

US News & World Report posts, "Florida to Execute Severely Mentally Ill Man Unless Supreme Court Intervenes," by Elizabeth Flock.

Florida plans to execute John Ferguson on Monday even if he doesn't understand why.

Ferguson, 65, was convicted of killing eight people in South Florida in two separate incidents in the 1970s. He is also severely mentally ill, having been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by multiple court-appointed doctors during his 35 years on death row. He describes himself as "the prince of God" and believes his coming execution is the result of a communist conspiracy.

And yet Ferguson was slated to die by lethal injection in October, but was issued a last-minute stay after his lawyers argued it was unconstitutional to execute a mentally ill man.

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott Poised to Execute the 'Prince of God',” is by Stephanie Mencimer for Mother Jones.

Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott is making a big push to expedite the executions of many prisoners who are currently on the state's death row. He's signed five death warrants this year (three within a four-week span this spring), a pace rarely seen since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. One of the condemned is John Ferguson, who's set to be executed on Monday. Ferguson is a notorious killer who has been on death row for more than 30 years. He's also a paranoid schizophrenic who thinks he's the "Prince of God." 

Scott's decision to move forward with Ferguson's execution has spurred his lawyers, supported by the National Association for Mental Illness and the American Bar Association, to petition the US Supreme Court to intervene. Because he's mentally ill, they argue, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court has until Monday to stay the execution or allow it to proceed.

The justices in recent years have ruled that states can no longer execute juveniles and the mentally retarded. And in 2007, the court issued an opinion in Panetti v. Quarterman attempting to make it more difficult to execute the mentally ill. The court said states can no longer execute mentally ill people just because they recognize that they're going to be executed and know the reason for it. They must have a "rational understanding" of the impending execution and its cause. Otherwise, the main justification for capital punishment—retribution—can't be satisfied.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

NAMI Files Amicus Brief in John Ferguson Case

"Mental Health Experts Call on U.S. Supreme Court to Halt Florida Execution of John Ferguson on August 5," is the news release issued by NAMI, via PR Newswire.  Here's the full text:

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) filed an amicus brief today, along with three Florida mental health organizations, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the execution of John Ferguson, a man with a long history of severe mental illness, who is on Florida's death row and scheduled for execution on Monday, Aug. 5.

The amicus brief can be viewed at www.nami.org/ferguson.

The amicus brief explains that Ferguson's execution would violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the Florida Supreme Court failed to apply the Supreme Court case, Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), that requires an individual to have a rational understanding of why he is being put to death and the effect of the death penalty.

"The death penalty is not constitutionally allowable as a punishment for John Ferguson because his delusions prevent him from understanding the nature of what is happening to him," said Ron Honberg, J.D., NAMI's national director of policy and legal affairs.

"The constitutional principle does not excuse his crimes, but it does point to life without parole as the appropriate sentence."

Ferguson has a documented 40-year history of profound mental illness, including multiple diagnoses by state doctors in state institutions. He suffers from psychotic hallucinations, including the belief that he is the "Prince of God," that he cannot be killed, and his body will not remain in a grave.  He believes he will rise up after his execution and fight alongside Jesus to save America from a communist plot.   

Along with NAMI, state organizations filing the amicus brief with are NAMI Florida, the Florida Psychiatric Society and the Florida Psychological Association. The amici members have participated in competency hearings and have a strong interest in having the courts apply the correct legal standards for mental competence. 

The Florida Supreme Court applied an outdated, unconstitutional standard and held that it was sufficient to show that Ferguson had a mere factual awareness of his execution. But the U.S. Supreme Court in Panetti rejected that standard six years ago. U.S. Supreme Court precedent currently requires a showing that individuals have a rational understanding of why they are being put to death and the effect of their execution.  Thus, the Florida ruling – which one federal appeals court called "patently incorrect" – is incompatible with the Eighth Amendment. 

About NAMI

NAMI is the nation's largest grassroots mental health organization dedicated to building better lives for the millions of Americans affected by mental illness. NAMI advocates for access to services, treatment, supports and research and is steadfast in its commitment to raising awareness and building a community of hope.  

"Executing People With Serious Mental Illness Offends Our Constitution and Our Humanity," is Ronald S. Honberg's essay at Huffington Post.  He's the National Director for Policy and Legal Affairs for NAMI.

Mr. Ferguson was first diagnosed with mental illness nearly 50 years ago. He has spent the last 35 of those years on death row in Florida, following convictions for multiple murders. Mr. Ferguson has been in prison since his convictions, and if his death sentence is commuted, he will remain there for the rest of his life to keep the public safe.

But executing him, as the State plans on Monday, August 5, would violate the U.S. Constitution. In Ford v. Wainwright (1986) and Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who is insane and lacks a rational understanding of why he is being put to death and the effect of the death penalty.

In fact, states have been prohibited from executing people who are insane since the founding of our nation. It was a principle the colonists carried over from centuries of English common law. In 1680, the English jurist Sir Edward Coke explained: "By intendment of Law the execution of the offender is for example... but so it is not when a mad man is executed, but should be a miserable spectacle, both against Law, and of extream inhumanity and cruelty, and can be no example to others."

Some 300 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court observed: "Whether its aim be to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding, or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction [against executing the insane] finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment."

The ACLU Blog of Rights posts, "Florida Will Kill Severely Mentally Ill Man Unless Supreme Court Intervenes," by Anna Arceneaux.

Unless the United States Supreme Court intervenes in the next few days, Florida will execute John Ferguson on August 5, despite a well-documented history of his psychosis spanning over 40 years.

Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, Ferguson believes that he is the "Prince of God" and that after his execution he will be reincarnated in his same body, help Jesus fight the Antichrist, save America from a communist plot, and rule the earth. He thinks his conviction is the result of a communist conspiracy. He is certain that the state seeks to execute him not for his crimes but to prevent him from ascending to sit at God's right hand.

After a traumatic brain injury at age 21, Ferguson spent a decade in and out of mental hospitals. Doctors recommended that he receive long-term hospitalization and treatment. They warned that he should remain hospitalized because he was dangerously mentally ill. Nevertheless, he was ultimately discharged. Within two years, Ferguson was facing trial for multiple murders.

"US groups bid to halt execution of mentally ill man," is the AFP report, via Business Standard.

Medical experts filed a motion to the US Supreme Court today calling for the execution of a mentally ill mass-killer in Florida to be halted.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) said in a statement it had requested that the execution of John Ferguson, sentenced to death for the murders of eight people in the 1970s, be stopped because it violated the constitution.

Ferguson, a paranoid schizophrenic who refers to himself as the "Prince of God", is set to be executed on August 5 at 2200 GMT at Raiford prison.

NAMI has joined with three other organizations -- NAMI Florida, the Florida Psychiatric Society and the Florida Psychological Association -- to call for Ferguson's death sentence to be stayed.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

ABA Files Amicus in John Ferguson Case

The American Bar Association has issued the news release, "ABA asks Supreme Court to clarify competency standard in case of Florida death row inmate."  Here's the full text:

In a case involving a death row prisoner in Florida who has long suffered from severe mental illness, the American Bar Association is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the Eighth Amendment standard to be applied when determining competency to be executed.

The ABA’s amicus brief in Ferguson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, filed in support of the prisoner’s request that the court grant certiorari in his case, observes that several courts, including the Florida Supreme Court in this case, have variously misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Panetti v. Quarterman. In that 2007 decision, the court held that for a prisoner to be competent for execution, he must have a rational understanding of the meaning and purpose of his execution, the ABA notes.

“Holding a person accountable is intended to be an affirmation of personal responsibility. Executing someone who lacks a meaningful understanding of the nature of this awesome punishment and its retributive purpose offends the concept of personal responsibility rather than affirming it,” the brief states, quoting from the amicus brief the ABA previously filed in Panetti.

Thus, the ABA argued in its Panetti brief, when “a death row inmate attributes his pending execution to reasons that only someone suffering from a significant mental disability could espouse — such as a delusion that he is to be executed because of his faith in God — he cannot be said to have the capacity to accept responsibility for his crimes.”

State and federal courts have been unable to apply Panetti in a uniform manner, the ABA’s Ferguson brief argues, stating, “The Court should grant the petition and now clarify the standard courts should apply in determining whether a capital prisoner is competent to be executed.”

The ABA’s Ferguson amicus brief is available online here.

"Schizophrenic US murder convict appeals execution," is the AFP post, via Business Recorder.

The lawyer of a mentally ill man who killed eight people and proclaimed himself "the prince of God" has petitioned the US Supreme Court for a halt to his execution.

John Ferguson, 65, who has a documented history of paranoid schizophrenia, is scheduled to be executed on a Monday August 5 execution at Florida State Prison in Raiford.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.  Coverage of Scott Panetti's case begins at the link.  More on the U.S. Supreme Court 2007 ruling in  Panetti v. Quarterman is via Oyez.

Cert Petition Filed for John Ferguson

Advocates for John Ferguson, the severely mentally ill Florida death row inmate, have filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Here is the full text of a news release:

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Stop Execution of Schizophrenic Florida Man
Execution set for Monday, August 5
John Ferguson has 40-year history of severe mental illness diagnosed by State doctors

(Washington, D.C.) Attorneys for John Ferguson, a paranoid schizophrenic who believes he is the “Prince of God” who will come back to life after his execution and has a 40-year history of profound mental illness, have filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Ferguson’s petition urges the Court to halt his execution in Florida on Monday, August 5 and hear his case because the Eighth Amendment bars executing the insane and the State used an outdated, unconstitutional standard to evaluate Mr. Ferguson’s competency for execution.

The petition can be accessed here.  The American Bar Association and national and state advocates for the mentally ill are expected to file amicus briefs.

“John Ferguson is a sick, elderly man. Executing Mr. Ferguson would be an unconscionable violation of the Eighth Amendment and our shared values respecting human life. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution prohibits the cruel and unusual punishment of executing people like Mr. Ferguson who have no rational understanding of why they are being put to death or the effect of their execution,” said Christopher Handman, attorney for Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Ferguson’s certiorari petition asks the Court to review his case because (1) the federal Court of Appeals rubberstamped a decision by the Florida Supreme Court finding Mr. Ferguson competent, even though one of the federal appellate judges recognized that the State court had applied a “patently incorrect” legal standard for assessing competency; and (2) the Court’s intervention is necessary to resolve confusion among the lower courts about the correct legal standard for evaluating mental competency to be executed. Despite Court precedent, rooted in hundreds of years of English common law prohibiting the execution of the insane, individuals with severe mental illness continue to be executed in the United States.

Mr. Ferguson’s petition states that the Florida Supreme Court failed to determine his competency to be executed in line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Panetti v. Quarterman (2007). The Florida Supreme Court failed to follow Panetti and instead returned to an outdated standard for adjudging a defendant’s competency to be executed, a standard that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in Panetti. Florida courts found Mr. Ferguson competent because he had a rudimentary factual awareness of his planned execution. In Panetti, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a mere factual understanding was not sufficient. To be deemed competent, the individual must have a rational understanding of the reason for his execution and the effect of his execution.

Mr. Ferguson has neither a rational understanding of the reason for his execution or the effect of his execution. Mr. Ferguson believes that he is the “Prince of God” and that after his execution, he will return in his same body, fight against anti-Christs with Jesus, save America from a communist plot, and rule the earth. He believes he has “inner ears” through which he hears God’s instructions. He thinks his conviction is the result of a Communist conspiracy. Like the prisoner in Panetti, Mr. Ferguson’s “Prince of God” delusions and belief in his own superpowers deny him any “rational understanding” of the reason for his execution or the effect of the execution.

Even the Florida courts found that Mr. Ferguson has a documented history of paranoid schizophrenia; that he is not malingering or “faking” his mental illness; and that he has a fixed grandiose delusion that he is the “Prince of God.” Under binding Supreme Court precedent, these findings of fact should bar Florida from executing Mr. Ferguson. But the Florida courts and the Eleventh Circuit have simply refused to follow clearly established precedent.

After suffering a traumatic brain injury at age 21, Mr. Ferguson spent a decade in and out of mental hospitals. Though the State’s own psychiatrists recommended that Mr. Ferguson remain hospitalized because he was dangerously mentally ill, he was discharged. Less than two years later, he stood trial for multiple murders. The juries that recommended death sentences never heard any evidence of Mr. Ferguson’s mental illness, despite that he has been diagnosed with psychosis and schizophrenia more than 40 times spanning 40 years of his life. 

Governor Scott initially signed a warrant for Mr. Ferguson’s execution in September 2012. That execution was stayed after the Eleventh Circuit issued an eleventh-hour stay to consider Mr. Ferguson’s competency. The Eleventh Circuit ultimately ruled on May 21, 2013 that the execution could proceed.

###

The American Bar Association most recent Project Press posts, "Eleventh Circuit Rejects Appeal for John Ferguson," by Susanna Bagdasarova.  Here's the beginning of this detailed report:

In May 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected an appeal by John Errol Ferguson, a Florida prisoner who has been on death row for more than three decades. Mr. Ferguson, a prisoner with a 40-year history of mental illness and a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, was scheduled to be executed in October of 2012. His execution was halted at the last minute when the Eleventh Circuit granted a stay to allow time for Mr. Ferguson, represented by a team of volunteer attorneys from Hogan Lovells, to pursue an appeal.

Hogan Lovells argued that executing Mr. Ferguson would be unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Panetti v. Quarterman, which established that no person should be executed if he lacks a “rational understanding” of the reasons for and consequences of his punishment. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the Florida Supreme Court correctly applied U.S. Supreme Court precedent when it evaluated Mr. Ferguson’s claims under the older and more permissive Ford standard of competence, which requires only that the prisoner have a “factual awareness” of his execution and the reason for it.

"Florida Governor Rick Scott’s Solution for Schizophrenics? Execute Them," is the title of Ted Corless' News Munchies post.

My voice used to bounce off the hallowed halls of a century’s old high school where one of the key issues our prized debate team examined was the death penalty.  If you study any of my previous blog posts or listen to News Munchies podcasts on capital punishment, my objective was to distill that issue to its most fundamental premise by identifying the various battle points.  I sought to examine the legal, practical, and ethical boundaries for the state-sponsored killing of American citizens and I came up with the following: the death penalty serves one purpose, e.g., to remove “pests” in the same way exterminators kill ants, roaches, and other nuisances we find on our linoleum floors.

Looking at capital punishment through that lens, I cannot support the execution of a schizophrenic whose diagnosis predated his crimes.  The Florida Supreme Court found, “Mr. [John Errol] Ferguson undoubtedly suffers from mental illness which is documented from the time prior to the murders committed…”  In 1977, John Errol Ferguson was convicted of killing eight people in South Florida in two separate incidents.  The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May that although Ferguson suffers from mental illness, he has a rational understanding of what he did.  Really?  Ferguson identifies himself as the “Prince of God” and states that after his death he will ascend to God’s right hand and defend the United States against a communist plot.  One commentator noted that this belief has an eerily close proximity to mainstream Christian beliefs.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins with news of the setting of a new execution date.

Move Coverage of Solitary Confinement Problems

The ACLU white paper, A Death Before Dying: Solitary Confinement on Death Row, is at the link.

The Colorado ACLU report, Out of Sight, Out of Mind, is available in Adobe .pdf format.  A summary web page is also available.

"ACLU uncovers increased proportion of mentally ill inmates in solitary," is by Jennifer Brown for the Denver Post.

Nearly 90 Colorado prisoners with serious mental illness were locked in solitary confinement this year — and many had been there for at least four years — despite legal and expert recommendations that prisons stop "warehousing" the mentally ill in 23-hour-a-day isolation.

An 18-month study by the ACLU of Colorado also found the proportion of mentally ill prisoners held in solitary confinement increased from 2011 to 2012, even as the state prison system decreased the overall number of inmates in solitary.

Prisoners with moderate to severe mental illness now make up the majority of those in solitary, also called "administrative segregation," according to the report, obtained by The Denver Post and to be released Tuesday. The 87 prisoners with serious mental illness in solitary have diseases including schizophrenia and severe depression.

There were 684 prisoners in administrative segregation as of June 30, or 3.9 percent of the inmate population, according to the corrections department.

One reason so many mentally ill inmates are in solitary is that the Colorado prison system has a severe shortage of psychiatrists, falling well short of national recommendations, according to the report.

"It is clear that one of the Colorado Department of Corrections' methods of managing the scores of mentally ill prisoners under its charge is to confine them in administrative segregation," says the report, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind."

"We have not seen a commitment from the department that says 'we agree we need to move all seriously mentally ill prisoners out of solitary confinement,' " said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. "We will continue to press the Department of Corrections."

The Boulder Daily Camera posts AP coverage, "ACLU: Most mentally ill inmates held in solitary confinement."

The ACLU said the percentage of mentally ill prisoners held in solitary confinement increased from about 46 percent in 2011 to nearly 58 percent in 2012, while the total number of prisoners in solitary declined.

Department of Corrections officials said they had not reviewed the report and would not comment on specifics.

The prison system has made significant improvements in the last year in the way it handles mentally ill prisoners, and those changes are just beginning to register in the statistics, they said.

The changes include a new, 240-bed residential treatment program inside Centennial Correctional Facility in Canon City.

Eighteen inmates were moved into the program in the past two weeks, said Kellie Wasko, director of clinical and correctional services for the Department of Corrections.

The ACLU study said one reason so many mentally ill inmates were held in solitary was a shortage of psychiatrists in the prison system.

The department has 11 psychiatrists, and the Legislature approved hiring 13 more.

But even if all the new positions are filled, Colorado would have one psychiatrist per 166 inmates, below the nationally recommended guideline of one per 150 inmates.

"The Case Against Solitary Confinement," is by Sarah Shourd for the Daily Beast.

It’s the most extreme isolation in the history of humankind: some 80,000 people in America’s prisons are being held in solitary confinement. They are people who haven’t shared a meal with someone else for years. Others haven’t experienced physical contact—or even seen a tree—for decades. They are isolated from almost everything, living in small, box-like cells surrounded by high walls and heavily guarded fences.

“Sometimes I feel like I’m in there with him,” Dolores Canales says about her son, who has been in isolation in a California prison for more than 12 years. “I feel his loneliness all these years…it’s too much sometimes.”

I have first-hand experience with solitary confinement. Beginning in 2009, I was held in a solitary cell for 410 days by the Iranian government, alongside my now-husband Shane Bauer and friend Josh Fattal. During that time, I was never allowed to meet with my lawyer, never taken to court and it was six months before authorities let me call my mother to tell her I was alive. They told me I couldn’t have a cellmate because I wouldn’t be safe, but during 13 months of isolation, I was never safe from my own mind.

I now work as a contributing editor for Solitary Watch, which monitors those people currently held in isolated confinement in the United States—a population higher than that of any other country in the world.

Earlier coverage of solitary confinement conditions begins with coverage of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project's white paper. 

Severely Mentally Ill Man Again Facing Execution in Florida

Florida death row inmate John Ferguson's case is back in the news.

The following is a statement from Christopher Handman, Attorney for John Ferguson, in response to Florida's setting of an execution date for Monday, August 5, 2013:

"We are disappointed that the State of Florida has rushed to reschedule Mr. Ferguson's execution.  Even after a federal appeals court judge recognized that Mr. Ferguson's mental competency was evaluated under a "patently incorrect" standard, the State has shown no reservations about this unconstitutional execution.  We will soon ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review Mr. Ferguson's case and to stay this execution.  Killing an elderly man who has languished on Florida's death row for 35 years with a debilitating and documented history of severe mental illness would be both senseless and unconstitutional."

"Death row inmate to appeal to US Supreme Court," is the AP report, via the News & Observer.

The attorney for a man scheduled to die by lethal injection says he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

John Errol Ferguson is set for execution on Aug. 5.

Ferguson's attorney Christopher Handman wrote in an email to The Associated Press on Tuesday that his client has a "documented history of severe mental illness" and shouldn't be executed.

The Miami Herald reports, "New execution date set for Miami mass killer Ferguson," by David Ovalle.

Miami mass killer John Errol Ferguson, whose execution was delayed for nine months over questions of his sanity, will be put to death at 6 p.m. on Aug. 5, the governor’s office announced Tuesday.

Ferguson, 65, has been on Death Row for more than three decades following convictions in eight murders.

He originally was scheduled to die by lethal injection in October but was issued a last-minute stay as defense lawyers insisted he was schizophrenic and his execution amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment.

His defense team has pointed to Ferguson’s belief that he is the “Prince of God” as evidence that mental illness should keep him from execution.

The new execution date came as a federal appeals court Tuesday affirmed a May decision upholding a Bradford County judge’s ruling that Ferguson indeed understands why is being put to death.

Earlier coverage of John Ferguson's case begins at the link.

Related posts are in the competency and mental illness category indexes.  The Supreme Court established standards to assess whether severely mentally ill inmates are competent to be executed in the 1986 case, Ford v. Wainwright; more via Oyez.