Scott Panetti Case Roundup: National Public Radio, The Marshall Project, and more
Stefanie Faucher
National Public Radio - Texas Execution Nears For Murderer Whose Competence Was Debated
The Marshall Project - Crazy or Faking it?
Texas Tribune - Court Declines to Stay Panetti's Execution
Raw Story - Texas says Scott Panetti is sane enough to execute, and that is insane
San Antonio Current - Texas Set to Execute Schizophrenic
A statement from attorneys for Scott Panetti: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxR5nee8pBYQV3RXcVFXVVhEdTQ/view?usp=sharing
----
Texas Execution Nears For Murderer Whose Competence Was Debated
By Wade Goodwyn, November 27, 2014
On Dec. 3, Texas is scheduled to execute Scott Panetti for murdering his in-laws in 1992. There is no doubt he committed the crime, and there is also no doubt that Panetti is mentally ill. But he was deemed fit to stand trial, and he was allowed to defend himself, dressing in a cowboy costume in court, insisting he was a character from a John Wayne movie.
Over the course of the last two decades — and many appeals — his case has gained national attention, and it has shone a spotlight on capital punishment and mental illness.
A Diagnosis
Since the 1970s, Panetti has had a long and extensively documented history of mental illness. He got his first diagnosis in 1978 while being treated for burns in at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. Panetti had been electrocuted while working for the power company.
"The doctors thought he was acting oddly, and they called in a psychiatrist to evaluate him," says Kathryn Kase, his death penalty lawyer. "And the psychiatrist realized that he was experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, and at the age of 20 he diagnosed him with the beginnings of schizophrenia."
For a while Panetti was able to keep his life together with the help of medication. He worked, married, had children and did his best to live a normal life. But his mental illness got progressively worse.
"One day, his wife came home, and she found him burying the furniture in the front yard. And of course, she knew he was mentally ill, but she was appalled by this, and as she approached him he ran into the house and started nailing the curtains together. And when she questioned him, he told her that he needed to bury the furniture in order to get the devil out of it," Kase says.
The voices in Panetti's head grew worse. There was Sgt. Ranahan, who donned Army fatigues and made armed patrols of the backyard for enemies. There was Wounded Songbird, a thoughtful Native American warrior.
Panetti would dress up in cowboy outfits and swagger around Fredericksburg, Texas, where they lived. Kase says Panetti's paranoia about the devil got so bad that his wife had him committed to a mental hospital in Waco.
"She committed him, and she told the doctors that 'Now he had this delusion about the devil,' " she says. "And like many people with paranoid schizophrenia, he developed a very specific delusion, and this was all about religion."
He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and chronic schizophrenia.
A Texas judge granted Panetti's wife a divorce, and she moved back to Wisconsin with the three children. After a couple of years, Panetti began dating a new woman, a Fredericksburg waitress, got her pregnant and eventually married her. This would prove a disaster. His new in-laws repeatedly reprimanded Panetti for his paranoid behavior. So his lawyer says that one night, Panetti dressed up as Sgt. Ranahan, shaved his head, painted his face camouflage and sawed off the barrel of his .30-06.
"And his paranoia takes over and he believes that they are filled with the devil, and he grabs his wife, he grabs his young child and he goes to his in-laws, and he shot them," Kase says.
Three years later, in 1995, in the small Hill Country town of Kerrville, Texas, Panetti was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death. For many, the heinous crime had resulted in a just and inevitable verdict. Others believe Panetti's case has been a miscarriage of justice.
"I think it's a travesty, I really do. I don't believe he got a fair trial. I don't believe that any of the proceedings through which he went were fair," says Charles Ewing, a forensic psychologist and law professor at SUNY Buffalo. He's the author of Insanity: Murder, Madness and the Law, which has a full chapter on the Panetti case.
"I don't believe that Panetti was competent to stand trial. He paraded about the courtroom dressed in a cowboy costume and acted in a menacing, threatening and incoherent manner," Ewing says.
A Legal Standard Put To The Test
At the time of Panetti's trial, the legal standard was that if a defendant was ruled competent to stand trial then they were also competent to represent themselves in court.
But the Panetti trial put that standard to the test. Off his medication, Panetti dressed in a purple cowboy costume, insisted he was the Ringo Kid from the movie Stagecoach and babbled around the courtroom incomprehensibly. He subpoenaed Jesus Christ, John F. Kennedy and Pope John Paul II in his defense. Ewing says the judge also inexplicably allowed Panetti to approach the jury box. The jurors would lean away in their chairs. After the trail was over, a few of the jurors said Panetti scared them.
"His demeanor was frightening to the jurors and they saw him as a crazy man. Some of the jurors said that had he been represented by counsel, they doubted that he would have been sentenced to death," Ewing says.
Panetti's lawyers appealed, arguing that the mentally ill man should never have been allowed to represent himself. But both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Panetti had knowingly waived his right to counsel. E. Bruce Curry, the district attorney in the case, declined to comment. But Rusty Hubbarth, a Texas lawyer and vice president of Justice for All, a pro-death penalty organization, believes the appeals courts got it right.
"There isn't a question of guilt or innocence here. It's not as if he was convicted last week and is being executed two weeks from now. He has enjoyed due process," Hubbarth says,
An execution date in 2004 was stayed after his lawyers argued Panetti didn't know why he was being put to death. His lawyers say he has an ongoing delusion that he's being executed for preaching the gospel to death row inmates. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, ruling that a defendant must have a rational understanding of the reasons for his imminent execution.
But Texas insists Panetti understands well enough and on Tuesday, in a 5-4 decision, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Panetti a stay of execution and refused to appoint mental health experts to his case. Hubbarth endorses the state's position arguing that being mentally ill does not excuse capital murder.
"We've executed people in Texas before that exhibited mental illness. Mental illness does not constitute a block for execution," he says.
Penetti's lawyers have not given up. The landmark case is being appealed again to the federal district court on the grounds that Panetti should indeed have a right to a competency hearing. But Panetti's time is almost out. Without reprieve he'll be executed next Wednesday.
-----
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/26/crazy-or-faking-it
Crazy or Faking it?
The impending execution of Scott Panetti and the search for a standard of sanity.
By MAURICE CHAMMAH, November 26, 2014
Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mentally ill inmates could not be executed for their crimes unless they were deemed “competent,” a condition that remained vaguely defined for more than two decades. The court tried to clarify the definition in 2007 through the case of Scott Panetti, a schizophrenic inmate in Texas who murdered his in-laws and then, acting as his own lawyer at trial, wore a cowboy outfit and tried to subpoena John F. Kennedy and the Pope. “Jesus Christ, he doesn’t need a subpoena,” Panetti said at one point during the trial. “He’s right here with me, and we’ll get into that.”
Panetti is now scheduled for execution on the evening of Dec. 3. His lawyers are asking for a stay so that his competency can be evaluated; they have petitioned the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend him for clemency, claiming that the execution of someone so mentally ill “would cross a moral line.” Prosecutors claim that Panetti is faking it.
Regardless of what happens next, the fact that Panetti is facing a lethal injection despite a 30-year history of documented mental illness demonstrates that the ambiguities of the legal standard of “competency” he helped to define are far from resolved.
In the 1986 case of a Florida inmate named Alvin Ford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing an insane person violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Thurgood Marshall, delivering the court’s decision, wrote that the definition of “cruel and unusual” changes over time, reflecting the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Justice Lewis Powell Jr. added in a concurrence, “I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.”
But the court did not set a standard for who was mentally fit and who was not, leaving that determination up to lower courts, who would hear experts for the prosecution and defense and decide on each inmate’s competency.The standard of what constitutes mental illness remained undefined even as a series of inmates widely believed to be severely schizophrenic and delusional were put to death, including Arkansas inmate Charles Singleton, who insisted his victim was still alive, and Florida inmate Thomas Provenzano, who claimed he was Jesus Christ.
The Supreme Court decided in 2002 to ban the death penalty for the “mentally retarded” — the more current term is “intellectually disabled” — and then in 2005 for those who committed their crimes before the age of 18. In both cases, the court cited the idea of “evolving standards of decency,” and decided that these defendants were less culpable for their crimes.
Mental health experts and defense lawyers assumed that the next group of defendants lined up to take advantage of these “evolving standards” would be those diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.
The problem was finding a clear way to define mental illness. The American Bar Association partnered with the American Psychological Association on a task force, which determined that it would be more difficult to ban the death penalty for the mentally ill, since psychotic disorders do not offer the same thresholds as intellectual disability or youth. There’s no number, like an IQ or an age, that courts can use to separate the insane from the healthy.
People with mental illnesses often understand they have committed a crime and do not show outward signs of instability. “There’s a misperception that if you’re incompetent to be executed you’re a drooling idiot,” says John Blume, a defense attorney and professor at the Cornell University law school. “People like Scott Panetti can have moments of lucidity.” Often, if a defendant appears sane, it is assumed that they are faking the illness to avoid punishment. “There’s a subtext of thinking that inmates are trying to game the system.”
In Panetti’s case, this has not been a subtext; prosecutors have explicitly argued he might be feigning mental illness. Defending himself at trial in 1994, Panetti flipped back and forth between incoherent ramblings (“The ominous auras, acts of law and reference with conflicts, with truth, truth that’s overly blatant, acceptance of calder(ph), unknowingly for convenience not danger not”) and moments of clarity. "I had problems with certain jurors that I couldn't think clearly enough to ask them a certain question and I declined to ask those questions,” he told the judge after jury selection, asking for a delay before the start of the trial. “I'm not looking for a long delay, but I'm going to definitely need a couple of days to get my medicine."
“We’re all kind of watching and going, 'What is Scott going to do next?'” recalls Scott Monroe, who was appointed to stand by as Panetti’s attorney but could not participate in the trial. He says some of Panetti’s cross-examinations were “lucid and appropriate.” But then Panetti described his crime — the violent shooting of his in-laws — to the jury in a chilling, third-person register, “like he was watching a movie.”
“I think he scared them,” Monroe says.
Defense attorneys and mental health experts have long claimed that a unique problem for insane defendants is that their illnesses, rather than leading to sympathy on the part of juries, can make them seem more dangerous. “People with mental illness are not more dangerous than the general population, but they are scarier,” says Christopher Slobogin, a professor of psychiatry at the Vanderbilt University School of Law who was on the American Bar Association’s task force on mental illness and the death penalty.
Appeals courts initially agreed with the judge at Panetti’s trial, who deemed him competent to be tried, and the jury, who found him deserving of a death sentence. A series of appeals arguing that his mental illness should have precluded a death sentence was unsuccessful.
When an execution date was set in 2004, Panetti’s attorneys changed tactics, arguing that under the Ford decision, their client should get a hearing over his competence. A lower court found that Panetti understood the fact that he would be put to death, and that was enough to qualify him for execution. The Supreme Court disagreed. In its 2007 decision Panetti v. Quarterman, the court sent his case back for another competency hearing, explaining that the lower courts needed to find that Panetti had a “rational understanding” of his execution and why it would happen.
Panetti’s case was hailed as a landmark by capital defense lawyers, but since then they have realized that lower courts are not significantly more likely to halt executions on these grounds. (The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Texas, has never done so). After surveying 140 cases in which attorneys argued their client was incompetent to be executed, Professor Blume and his colleagues wrote, “While some guidance beats no guidance, in the post-Panetti world lower courts and lawyers are still flummoxed as to what showing establishes a death row inmate’s incompetency to be executed.”
And Panetti himself did not benefit from the ruling that bears his name.
At a 2007 evidentiary hearing, the defense and prosecution again debated whether he understood the reason for his execution. Two defense doctors stated that Panetti believed, in the court’s words, “that his execution was part of a satanic conspiracy to keep him from preaching,” while two prosecution doctors countered that he was “at least partially fabricating his symptoms to thwart their attempts to administer structured examinations designed to detect malingering.” The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution, and this past October, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, allowing the state to set an execution date.
Panetti will face lethal injection on Wednesday unless a court grants his lawyers’ motion for a new competency hearing, Texas Gov. Rick Perry calls for a stay of execution, or the state’s Board of Pardons and Parole recommends clemency and Perry grants it. Letters supporting clemency have come from a range of organizations including the American Psychiatric Association and American Bar Association, as well as numerous Christian leaders and former Texas Gov. Mark White. Panetti’s ex-wife Sonja Alvarado, the daughter of his victims, said in a 1999 affidavit, “I know now that Scott is mentally ill and should not be put to death.”
The judge and district attorney who set the execution date for Panetti have not responded to requests for comment from the media. Monroe, who is now a district attorney in neighboring Kerr County, speculates the new execution date was meant to force the case to some sort of resolution: “My guess is there is a feeling of, ‘Can we bring this to a close after all this time?’”
----
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/26/court-declines-stay-panettis-execution/
Court Declines to Stay Panetti's Execution
by Jim Malewitz Nov. 26, 2014
Updated Nov. 26, 3:40 p.m.
Texas’ highest criminal court has again refused to halt Scott Panetti’s looming execution.
In a 6-3 ruling on Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals thwarted the latest effort to stay the schizophrenic death row inmate’s execution. It was the court’s second decision on the case in as many days.
In their latest motion, Panetti’s attorneys argued that his mental illness “renders him categorically ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, because imposition of the death penalty on offenders with severe mental illness offends contemporary standards of decency."
“We have reviewed the application,” the court’s majority wrote, “and find that applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements” for a reprieve.
In a dissenting statement, Judge Elsa Alcala said Panetti’s attorneys “raised a compelling argument that he is entitled to relief.”
“I would grant a stay of execution and file and set the application in order to allow this court the opportunity to fully examine applicant's contentions,” she wrote.
In a separate dissent, Judge Tom Price said he now believes the death penalty should be abolished.
Original story:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected a request to delay the looming execution of a schizophrenic death row inmate.
In a 5-4 decision handed down Tuesday, the court cited jurisdictional grounds in declining to stay Scott Louis Panetti’s execution, scheduled for December 3.
Panetti’s attorneys argue he is too incompetent to be legally put to death.
The Wisconsin native 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 – who represented himself at trial and dressed up in a cowboy suit in court – was a diagnosed schizophrenic and collected federal disability checks because he could not work.
The 56-year-old’s mental health is deteriorating, his attorneys say, and his recent paranoid delusions have included believing that someone is putting “Satanic graffiti” on his cell walls, and that state officials are watching him through pumpkin decorations at the Polunsky Unit where he is detained.
But the appeals court ruled that it couldn’t revisit a lower court’s refusal to grant a stay because his attorneys had not filed a proper “Article 46.05" motion “on or after the 20th day” before the scheduled execution.
On November 14, Panetti’s attorneys filed a motion asking for more time and expert help to “provide a meaningful opportunity” to prepare the Article 46.05 motion, which asks a court to reconsider whether an inmate is fit for execution.
“He has made a colorable showing that he is not competent to be executed,” they argued, but couldn’t meet the legal threshold without more resources.
But the appeals court on Tuesday said its was “deprived of jurisdiction” to weigh in.
“No motions for rehearing will be entertained, and the Clerk’s Office is instructed to issue mandate immediately,” the majority wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Elsa Alcala said she disagreed with the majority’s “overly formalistic interpretation.”
“This court, at best, deprives appellant of a fair opportunity to litigate his claims,” she wrote. “At worst, this court’s decision will result in the irreversible and constitutionally impermissible execution of a mentally incompetent person.”
Kathryn Kase, Panetti’s attorney and executive director of Texas Defender Service, said she agreed with Alcala.
“Texas continues to pursue the execution of a man with an incurable, devastating mental illness that profoundly affected the crime, his trial and his death sentence,” she said in a statement. “Mr. Panetti’s serious mental illness has infected every stage of his case.”
The ruling is the latest twist in Panetti’s 22-year legal saga.
In 2004, he was granted a stay the day before his scheduled execution. In 2007, one of his appeals made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that mentally ill inmates can be executed only if they understand what is about to happen and why. Because Panetti's competency has not been assessed for years, his attorneys claim, there’s no way to know if he meets that test.
----
Texas says Scott Panetti is sane enough to execute, and that is insane
By Katie Halper, November 26, 2014
Texas plans to kill Scott Panetti Wednesday December 3rd for the murder of his in-laws. The state argues that the 58-year-old paranoid schizophrenic is sane enough to be executed. And that, ironically, is inane… or dishonest and cruel. The state reaffirmed its commitment to not only capital punishment, but executing the mentally ill, in particular, on Tuesday, when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied yet another motion for a stay of execution for Panetti. Not that it matters to Texas, apparently, but the evidence of Panetti’s severe mental illness is overwhelming. His upcoming lethal injection is even more criminal given that his mental health history is well documented and goes back nearly thirty years! Let’s take a look at the evidence of not just Panetti’s mental illness, but the numerous ways the courts and the state have failed him.
Scott Panetti was first diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 20 at the Brook Army Medical Center, shortly after being honorably discharged from the Navy in 1978.
Over the next 14 years leading up to the crime, Panetti was hospitalized thirteen times, both voluntarily and involuntarily, and his shizophrenia and paranoid schizophrenia were diagnosed again and again.
The Social Secuirty Administration deemed that Panetti’s schizophrenia was so debilitating, it entitled him to government benefits in 1986.
Panetti hallucinated that he killed the devil who was in his home, then washed the devil’s blood off the walls.
On another occasion he buried his furniture and valuables because the devil was hiding in them.
In 1992, his mental health was so bad, his wife took their daughter and moved in with her parents. She was able to get a restraining order but the authorities refused to involuntarily commit him or take away his guns, which she begged them to do.
That same year, he woke up before dawn, shaved his head unevenly leaving patches of hair, went to his in-laws and shot them in front of his wife and three-year-old daughter. He took his wife and daughter to his bunkhouse before releasing them, washing off the blood, changing into a suit and then surrendering to the police.
During his trial he fired his lawyers and the judge let him represent himself even as he entered a not guilty by reason of insanity plea.
He called on over 200 witnesses, including Jesus Christ, The Pope, JFK and Anne Bankroft.
He wore a purple cowboy suit, a cowboy hat, bandanas, and cowboy boots with spurs.
When he asked the judge for a continuance to see his doctor and get his medication, the judge refused.
During the trial Panetti pointed an invisible rifle at the jury, and recounted having committed the crime in the third person. He also explained that he had been under the control of “Sarge” an alter-ego mentioned in doctors’ notes as early as 1990.
He wasn’t allowed to present his medical records in court because he had scribbled all over them so the prison guards, whom he believed were conspiring against him, couldn’t see them.
During the sentencing phase of the trial, the prosecution called on Dr. Grigson as a witness. He testified that unless Panetti was executed he would kill again. Grigson was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association that same year, and had already earned the nickname Dr Death, because he so frequently predicted the dangerous behavior of defendants he never examined in capital cases.
His lawyers say his mental health has only deteriorated. He is delusional, hearing voices once again, and believes he is the father of Selena Gomez.
He also believes that when Texas kills him next week it will be part of a conspiracy with the devil to stop him from preaching the gospel on death row.
He believes a listening device has been implanted into one of his teeth.
Scott Panetti’s life is so disposable, neither the District Attorney, who submitted the date of execution, nor the judge who signed it, informed Panetti’s counsel, which is the norm, especially in cases where the mental competence is in question. His co-counsel found out her client had a date of execution when she read it in the newspaper. Given that you only have 21 days to file an appeal, finding out after the fact is extremely damaging.
His execution would be so heinous that a clemency letters have been signed by former U.S. Representative Ron Paul; over 55 prominent Evangelical Christians and 7 retired and active Bishops from the United Methodist Church and other faith leaders; former Texas Governor Mark White, 10 Texas state legislators; nearly 30 former prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys General; Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, the American Bar Association, and the European Union, which represents twenty-eight nations.
You can learn more about Panetti, watch this video, learn more about him and sign this change.org petition written by Panetti’s younger sister, Victoria.
--------
http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archives/2014/11/26/texas-set-to-execute-schizophrenic
Texas Set to Execute Schizophrenic
Posted By Mark Reagan, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Scott Louis Panetti believes he is going to be executed for preaching the gospel.
That's far from the truth, but Panetti—a diagnosed schizophrenic, who is insane and suffers delusions—is being executed for murdering Joe Gaitan Alvarado, Jr., 55, and Amanda Carrion Alvarado, 56, in 1992 at their Fredericksburg home.
The Alvarado's were his estranged wife's parents.
"Panetti has been on death row since 1995, when a jury found him guilty of capital murder after he represented himself in court. During the trial, Panetti dressed like John Wayne—tying a purple handkerchief around his neck, tucking his jeans into boots and wearing a cowboy hat secured with a stampede string—and attempted to issue subpoenas for John F. Kenney, Jesus Christ and the pope," the San Antonio Express-News reported.
The American Psychological Association has long opposed Panetti's impending execution.
"Scientific knowledge about schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder supports the conclusion that persons in Panetti's condition cannot rationally understand the reasons for their execution. Convinced of the reality of their delusions, they simply cannot grasp the essential truth: that their impending execution is retribution for their crimes," the APA wrote in a 2007 Amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court.
The Express-News reported Wednesday that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Panetti's appeal by a 5-4 vote on a technicality. The paper also ran a strong editorial calling on Texas Governor Rick Perry to stay the execution.
"Gov. Rick Perry should stay Panetti's execution so he can undergo a competency hearing. Continuing with this execution without first truly establishing competency, or developing a treatment plan to attempt to establish competency, simply dismisses the complications of severe mental illness and justice," the editorial board stated. "If the execution is carried out, Panetti will die believing Satan is punishing him for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That would make this execution mindless vengeance."
And they are exactly right.
If Panetti is executed on December 3, he will be the 11th Texas inmate put to death this year.
----
Just In: Following a 5-4 divided ruling on Tuesday, today, a 6-3 splintered Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) again denied a stay of execution on Eighth Amendment grounds for Scott Panetti, a schizophrenic man scheduled for execution on December 3, 2014. On November 24th, attorneys filed a challenge to the use of the death penalty against persons with severe mental illness because there is an emerging consensus against the imposition of the death penalty on people with severe mental illness, like Mr. Panetti.
In a powerful dissent, Judge Tom Price wrote:
“I would grant applicant's motion for a stay of execution and would hold that his severe mental illness renders him categorically ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
“It is inconceivable to me how the execution of a severely mentally ill person such as applicant would measurably advance the retribution and deterrence purposes purportedly served by the death penalty.
“I can imagine no rational reason for carving a line between the prohibition on the execution of a mentally retarded person or an insane person while permitting the execution of a severely mentally ill person. At a minimum, therefore, I would hold that the execution of a severely mentally ill person violates the Eighth Amendment of the federal Constitution.”
Judge Elsa Alcala, joined by Judge Cheryl Johnson found that Mr. Panetti had raised a “compelling argument” that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of the seriously mentally ill and that the majority had not given “greater consideration” to his argument. They would have stayed Mr. Panetti’s execution and permitted further briefing of the Eighth Amendment issue.
The CCA Order and Dissents can be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxR5nee8pBYQa1czZHZmNHk0SXlVU3pKZkpnd0pId1owRnVB/view?usp=sharing
The following is a statement from Kathryn Kase, co-counsel for Mr. Panetti:
““In powerful dissents issued yesterday and today, judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals reflect the same concerns that people across the country have expressed about the impending execution of Scott Panetti. Today's dissent from Judge Tom Price, argues what tens of thousands of others across the nation have expressed - that executing a person as severely mentally ill as Scott Panetti will serve no retributive or deterrent value. New research shows that there is a growing trend across states against imposing the harshest punishment on people with severe mental illness. Certainly a consensus has emerged in this case, demonstrated by the widespread support for relief from the mental health community, the conservative faith community, the leading legal organizations, among others, that the execution of Mr. Panetti, who has suffered from schizophrenia for three decades, would cross a moral line. We will challenge today’s ruling and demonstrate that the execution of the Scott Panetti would be cruel and unusual punishment.”
-Kathryn Kase, attorney for Scott Panetti and Executive Director of Texas Defender Service
-November 26, 2014
Yesterday’s Ruling and Dissents
On Tuesday, November 25th, a 5-4 splintered Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) denied, on jurisdictional grounds, a stay of execution and appointment of counsel and mental health experts for Mr. Panetti. Attorneys for Mr. Panetti had appealed a denial from the trial court last week where they sought a stay of execution and appointment of counsel and mental health experts in order to allow for a meaningful opportunity to assess Mr. Panetti’s competency for execution.
The appeal, which was appealed on Tuesday to the federal district court, argues that based on incomplete records recently obtained by Mr. Panetti’s counsel and a recent visit by counsel with Mr. Panetti, Mr. Panetti’s condition has deteriorated. Mr. Panetti is hearing voices, believes that a listening device has been implanted in his tooth and that TDCJ wants him to ‘shut up’ about corruption on death row and to stop him from preaching the Gospel.
Mr. Panetti’s attorneys say that this new information provides sufficient evidence that Mr. Panetti can make a showing that he is not competent for execution and that he is therefore entitled to appointed counsel, funding for a mental health expert and investigator, and a stay of execution so that he can prepare an adequate motion under Art. 46.05 raising his competency for execution claim.
Opening CCA Appeal Brief filed on November 20, 2014: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxR5nee8pBYQYk5pYU5yek1wejdqaUQtLWJsOFpVY1RZVFpN/view?usp=sharing
CCA Motion for Stay of Execution filed on November 20, 2014: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxR5nee8pBYQUGRobFU0UDEtOWRlREk0ekNyblpIdjBDSlBF/view?usp=sharing
The appeal states:
“In denying Scott Panetti’s request for a stay of execution, assistance of counsel, and funding for a mental health expert and investigator, the trial court made precisely the same mistake that Judge Stephen B. Ables made in this case over a decade ago – a mistake that, the United States Supreme Court held, violated bedrock principles
of due process. In Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), the Supreme Court reached two conclusions that squarely address the issue this Court now faces. First, the Supreme Court found that the preliminary showing of incompetency dictated by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), is neither onerous nor requires an inmate to
present evidence that answers the Ford inquiries. Instead, the inmate need only make a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a more thorough exploration by the court. Second, the Supreme Court confirmed that, once an inmate has made this preliminary showing, the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment require the court to
give the inmate the tools needed to meaningful develop and present evidence of incompetency. Panetti, 551 U.S. at 952.”
“It is a bitter twist that the trial court is again depriving Mr. Panetti of the due process rights the Supreme Court announced in this very case seven years ago.”
“Mr. Panetti made the preliminary showing that triggers the due process protections of Ford and Panetti. Without first being afforded that rudimentary due process, Mr. Panetti cannot make the requisite Article 46.05 showing. Accordingly, this Court should conclude that Mr. Panetti is constitutionally entitled to a stay of execution, the appointment of counsel, and funding to retain a mental health expert and an investigator to assist him in preparing his Article 46.05 motion.” (pp. 36-38)
CASE BACKGROUND:
Three-Decade History of Severe Psychosis and Delusions
Mr. Panetti has suffered from extreme mental illness for over 30 years. He was hospitalized a dozen times for psychosis and delusions in the six years leading up to the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death.
The first time Mr. Panetti showed signs of being afflicted with a psychotic disorder was in 1978, over 14 years before the crime. During his multiple hospitalizations, doctors diagnosed him with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder and proscribed antipsychotic medication.
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.
Two years before the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Panetti was involuntarily committed for homicidal behavior and was found to be suffering from delusions and psychotic religiosity.
The crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to death also had the hallmarks of a severely disturbed mind. While off his antipsychotic medication, Mr. Panetti shaved his head and dressed in camouflage fatigues before going to his in-laws’ home and committing the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced to death.
Detailed information about Mr. Panetti’s medical history can be found in this 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:https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LFfr8Iqz_7c3kzWW5nRFBib1U/view?usp=sharing
Mr. Panetti’s Trial: ‘A Miserable Spectacle’
Despite being a paranoid schizophrenic, Mr. Panetti represented himself at his capital murder trial in 1995. Wearing a cowboy costume with a purple bandana and attempting to call over 200 people to the witness stand, including the Pope, John F. Kennedy, Jesus Christ and his own alter ego, Mr. Panetti was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Mr. Panetti’s statements in court, at both the guilt and sentencing phase, were bizarre and incomprehensible. He took the witnesses stand and testified about his own life in excessive and irrelevant detail.
Mr. Panetti announced that he would assume the personality of “Sarge” and recounted the gruesome details of the crime in the third person. He gestured as if pointing a rifle to the jury box (visibly upsetting the jurors) and matter- of-factly imitated the sound of shots being fired.
Fixed Delusion that Texas is Trying to Kill Him for Preaching the Gospel
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.
If his execution date is not withdrawn, he will go to the execution chamber convinced that he is being put to death for preaching the Gospels, not for the murder of his wife’s parents, and the retributive goal of capital punishment will not be served.
Emerging Consensus Against the Imposition of the Death Penalty Against the Severely Mentally Ill
On November 24, 2014, attorneys for Mr. Panetti filed a challenge to the use of the death penalty against persons with severe mental illness, including schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, both of which were diagnosed in Mr. Panetti decades ago.
The habeas petition, which was filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, can be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxR5nee8pBYQRWZpbWdQZkV3d0xRTFI2RWE3M21WZXcyYlQ0/view?usp=sharing
Mr. Panetti’s Subsequent Motion for a Stay of Execution can be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxR5nee8pBYQeVdkODE0VWpsN3RERW80LXUtVUFmTHhBakg4/view?usp=sharing
Citing new research from a forthcoming empirical study, today’s filing argues that actual sentencing practices reveal an emerging consensus against use of the death penalty in cases where the defendant has severe mental illness. The new research, which examines the capital sentencing practices of 7 states, finds that only “5 out of 68, or 7.35% of defendants found [guilty but mentally ill] have been sentenced to death.” (p. 45)
Furthermore, “the most recent instance in which a defendant found [guilty but mentally ill] was sentenced to death took place at least 20 years ago,” and none of those defendants has been executed. (pp. 45-46)
The new research “provides a critical element that has been missing from previous arguments that people with severe mental illness deserve the same constitutional protection when facing the death penalty that Atkins provides to people with intellectual disability. No court previously presented with this argument has had before it any evidence of actual relevant sentencing practices.” (pp. 43)
“The infrequency with which the death penalty is imposed on the class of death-eligible mentally ill defendants…demonstrates that a consensus has emerged against the imposition of the death penalty on mentally ill defendants.” (p. 47)
Other objective factors that demonstrate the national consensus against the death penalty for people with severe mental illness include the opinion of mental health professionals, and “[n]early every major mental health association in the United States has published policy statements recommending an outright…ban on the death penalty for offenders with severe mental illness....” (pp. 48-49)
The National Alliance on Mental Health (NAMI), NAMI’s Texas affiliate, the American Psychiatric Association, Mental Health America, Disability Rights Texas, dozens of other mental health experts and the American Bar Association, which in 2006 approved a resolution urging preclusion of the death penalty for those who were mentally ill at the time of their crimes, are actively urging officials in Texas to stop Mr. Panetti’s execution.
The filing notes that “the imposition of the death penalty on people with severe mental illness, like people with intellectual disability [who are protected from the death penalty], does not serve the goals of deterrence and retribution because of their reduced moral culpability.” (p. 62). Furthermore, “defendants with severe mental illness have less ability to meaningfully assist counsel, have demeanors which can alienate a jury, and can less effectively testify on their own behalf.” (p. 64)
This was certainly the case with Mr. Panetti who “displayed ‘bizarre, ‘trance-like’ and ‘scary’ behavior throughout his trial. He asked nonsensical questions about Native Americans…and flipped a coin to decide whether to strike a potential juror.” (pp. 64-65)
“During the punishment phase, Mr. Panetti called only one witness, his standby counsel, before delivering an unintelligible punishment phase closing argument:
You know, just to touch on the spat and wasn’t cuffed, but I was bronc and Sheriff Kaiser and I had a talk, well, of the fact that I’m no longer American citizen, and because of my buckaroo case. I believe city people love horses, too, and I don’t consider myself anything above or below anyone, but I do consider myself me, and when I made my last confession at Veterans Hospital to Father De la Garza, I wasn’t Catholic. (p. 30)
Widespread Support for Clemency
On November 12, 2014, Mr. Panetti's attorneys filed a clemency petition with Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles along with letters supporting clemency from the leading Texas and national mental health organizations and professionals such as the American Psychiatric Association, Mental Health America and Disability Rights Texas; criminal justice and legal professionals including former Texas Governor Mark White, state Attorneys General and former judges and prosecutors; 55 Evangelical leaders from Texas and nationally and 7 retired and active Bishops from the United Methodist Church and other faith leaders; Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation and the American Bar Association, among others.
On November 18, 2014, worldwide support for Scott Panetti reached a groundswell with new calls for clemency from prominent individuals and organizations from across Texas and the world, including the nation’s largest grassroots advocacy organization on mental illness, National Alliance on Mental Health (NAMI); NAMI’s Texas affiliate; ten legislators from Texas; former U.S. Representative Ron Paul; several more Evangelical Christians; and the European Union, which represents twenty-eight nations.
The clemency petition can be accessed through Texas Defender Service’s web page on the case: http://texasdefender.org/scott-panetti/
To access the letters supporting clemency, additional legal documents and other case resources, including a video, please go to:texasdefender.org/scott-panetti.
Additionally, a petition started by Mr. Panetti’s sister, Vicki Panetti, has been signed by over 88,000 concerned individuals.https://www.change.org/p/gov-rick-perry-spare-my-brother-s-life-a-severely-mentally-ill-man-on-death-row
--