468:
incompetence, and arguably failed to hold the competency hearing required by Texas law. Most importantly, however, the Texas courts did not afford
Panetti an opportunity to refute the opinions of the court-appointed experts. Although counsel had asked the trial court to give him money to hire experts of his own, the trial court ended the case without ruling on that request. These deficiencies in the procedures the Texas courts used to determine that Panetti was competent to be executed led the Court to conclude that Panetti did not receive the minimal process due him under
460:, once a prisoner seeking a stay of execution makes a "substantial threshold showing of insanity", he must be afforded a fair hearing at which the question of his competence to be executed can be resolved. This means he must have an "opportunity to be heard" by an impartial decisionmaker. In other words, the legal determination of his competence to be executed cannot rest solely on the determination of experts, because doing so would prevent the inmate from offering evidence to rebut any expert's opinion that he was competent to be executed.
104:
35:
359:. Panetti's ex-wife testified at the competency hearing and described one of Panetti's psychotic episodes in 1986. During that episode, Panetti had "become convinced the devil had possessed their home and, in an effort to cleanse their surroundings, Panetti had buried a number of valuables next to the house and engaged in other rituals." Even with this testimony, Panetti was found competent to be tried and to waive his right to counsel.
525:
considered, at least in the colloquial sense, to be out of touch with reality" may still have a "rational understanding" of the reason for his execution. Panetti's claim was that, by virtue of his mental illness, his psychotic disorder, he lacked such a "rational understanding". Both the Texas courts' procedural missteps and the Fifth
Circuit's substantive definition of incompetence precluded consideration of this contention.
393:. Nevertheless, it denied relief because, under Fifth Circuit precedent, it was enough that Panetti know simply that he was about to be executed and the "factual predicate" for the execution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Panetti's habeas petition, and on January 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 17, 2007, with Texas Solicitor General
500:
execution was part of "spiritual warfare" between the "demons and the forces of the darkness and God and the angels and the forces of light." Panetti understands that the State claims it is executing him for the murders, but believes that the State's reason is a sham and the real reason is that the State wants to stop
Panetti from preaching. Panetti's other experts testified to similar conclusions.
363:
Panetti was not competent, and that his behavior made a farce and mockery of the judicial process. Panetti had also allegedly stopped taking his medication a few months before the trial. Indeed, two months after the end of the trial, the trial court found
Panetti incompetent to waive his right to state habeas counsel. Nevertheless, Panetti was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
504:
schizophrenia does not diminish a person's cognitive abilities, such that during short interactions the patient may appear lucid. Over time, however, the patient's mental illness would become apparent. Based on this testimony, the Fifth
Circuit had held that Panetti's delusions did not render him incompetent. But the Court held that the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of
380:
experts to evaluate
Panetti. Lawyers defending Panetti were given a one-week notice to also acquire mental health experts to also evaluate Panetti. Both of the experts for the state concluded that Panetti was malingering in order to avoid execution. Panetti responded by arguing that the trial court's procedures did not comply with the procedures set forth in
355:
Panetti sought to represent himself, and so the trial court ordered a competency hearing. Panetti was found to be suffering from a "fragmented personality, delusions, and hallucinations" for which he had been hospitalized over 12 times and for which he had been prescribed high doses of powerful psychiatric drugs for
511:
For the Fifth
Circuit, three of the district conclusions were sufficient to sustain the ruling that Panetti was competent. First, Panetti knew that he had committed the murders. Second, Panetti knew that he was about to be executed. And third, Panetti knew that the State's given reason for executing
467:
because he had made the required threshold showing; indeed, if he had not done so, why had the state trial court appointed the mental health experts to evaluate him? The state courts refused to transcribe the proceedings, failed to keep
Panetti's counsel apprised of the progress of Panetti's claim of
379:
denied
Panetti's appeal, and Panetti filed another federal habeas petition. On February 4, 2004, the federal district court stayed Panetti's execution in order to allow the state courts to adjudicate Panetti's claim of mental incompetence. The state trial court, in turn, appointed two mental health
354:
In 1992, Scott
Panetti killed his mother-in-law and his father-in-law, the parents of his second wife, Sonja Alvarado. He then held his wife and daughter hostage for the night, and surrendered to police the next morning. Three years later, Panetti was tried in a Texas state court for capital murder.
503:
The State's witnesses conceded that Panetti was mentally ill, although they resisted the conclusion that Panetti was not competent to be executed. They pointed to the fact that at times Panetti was "clear and lucid", and could understand "certain concepts". Panetti's experts reminded the court that
362:
A veteran of the US Navy, Panetti's defense at trial was that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Standby counsel related that Panetti's behavior was "scary", "bizarre", and "trance-like." It was evident to standby counsel, based on Panetti's behavior both in private and before the jury, that
519:
The Eighth Amendment forbids executing the insane because doing so offends human decency in that it serves neither the goal of retribution or deterrence. "The potential for a prisoner's recognition of the severity of the offense and the objective of community vindication are called into question,
439:
until his execution was imminent. It rejected the State's contrary argument because of the perverse results it would have generated – inmates could be forced to litigate their competency to be executed before any signs of mental illness had set in. "An empty formality requiring prisoners to file
524:
was referring to when it held that an inmate who lacks a rational understanding of the reason for his execution. A death-row inmate who is "so callous as to be unrepentant, so self-centered and devoid of compassion as to lack all sense of guilt, so adept at transferring blame to others as to be
499:
At an evidentiary hearing in the federal district court, four experts testified on Panetti's behalf. One expert opined that Panetti suffered from schizo-affective disorder, resulting in a genuine delusion regarding the reason for his execution. The expert stated that Panetti believed that his
366:
Panetti sought appellate review in the Texas courts, as well as state habeas relief. All these efforts were fruitless. The U.S. Supreme Court twice declined to review Panetti's case. Panetti then filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied, and that denial was affirmed by the
512:
him was the fact that he had committed the murders. These three facts allowed the Fifth Circuit to ignore the delusions that prevented Panetti from understanding that the reason for his execution was the fact that he had committed the murders. In the Fifth Circuit's view,
475:
Under AEDPA's standard for granting relief on a federal constitutional claim, the state court's resolution of that claim must be contrary to, or involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
520:
however, if the prisoner's mental state is so distorted by a mental illness that his awareness of the crime and punishment has little or no relation to the understanding of those concepts shared by the community as a whole." This is what the Court in
200:
Criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in
324:, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their
805:
386:. The state trial court responded by closing the case, ruling that Panetti did not show he was incompetent to be executed. He did not appeal to either the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.
374:
Once these federal habeas proceedings had ended, the state trial judge, Steven Ables, set an execution date of February 5, 2004. At this point, Panetti claimed that he was incompetent to be executed. The
820:
431:; not every subsequent habeas petition is subject to AEDPA's bar on second or successive habeas petitions. The Court ruled that Panetti's petition was not barred as "second or successive" because his
488:
when they adjudicated Panetti's claim of incompetence, the Court was free to determine what the proper procedure should have been, and whether Panetti was, in fact, not competent to be executed.
423:
claim – in his first federal habeas petition. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it unless he could overcome the bar on "second or successive" habeas petitions imposed by the
389:
Instead, he returned to federal court, where another hearing was held. After the hearing the district court concluded that the state courts had not complied with the procedural requirements of
484:
standard is stated in general terms, it was clear to the Court that the procedures the Texas courts employed did not fit the bill. Because the Texas courts had unreasonably applied
704:
640:
615:
590:
557:
424:
155:
368:
180:
307:
417:
The Court began its opinion by considering its jurisdiction. Panetti had not raised his claim that he was not competent to be executed – what lawyers call a
810:
567:
444:
claims neither respects the limited legal resources available to the States nor encourages the exhaustion of state remedies." Accordingly, Panetti's
815:
776:
825:
56:
761:
463:
The Texas courts did not comply with these minimal procedures in Panetti's case. Panetti was entitled to the procedural protections of
321:
108:
78:
766:
480:
supplied the clearly established law by which to evaluate the Texas courts' treatment of Panetti's claim. And even though the
376:
786:
635:
562:
342:
540:
claim was not second or successive, that the Texas courts did not afford Panetti the procedural protections required by
733:
325:
448:
claim was not barred by the second-or-successive rule, and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain Panetti's appeal.
49:
43:
781:
405:
On June 28, 2007, the last day of the term, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded by a vote of 5-4, with Justice
60:
751:
665:
187:
708:
644:
619:
594:
147:
260:
610:
419:
382:
336:
746:
830:
771:
228:
127:
Scott Louis Panetti v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
790:
533:
516:
required mere awareness of the State's reason rather than a rational understanding of it.
406:
252:
240:
715:
647:
622:
597:
264:
236:
136:
799:
356:
330:
202:
272:
248:
220:
544:, and that the Fifth Circuit did not apply the correct substantive standard under
150:
741:
428:
789:
Background on lead-up to Supreme Court case. Originally published 4/17/07 in
17:
162:
536:
dissented from all three of the Court's legal conclusions – that Panetti's
756:
724:
682:
669:
452:
Procedures for determining a Death Row inmate's competence to be executed
436:
394:
334:
proceedings. This decision reaffirmed the Court's prior holdings in
762:
On the Docket, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University
184:
103:
806:
Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law
28:
371:. The U.S. Supreme Court again declined to review the case.
821:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
782:
Amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
558:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 551
425:
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
289:
Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
301:
293:
285:
280:
209:
194:
175:
170:
142:
132:
122:
115:
96:
787:"Victims Await Final Verdict" by Ingrid Norton
427:(AEDPA). The term "second or successive" is a
8:
772:Amicus brief of the American Bar Association
757:Counsel for Panetti - Texas Defender Service
492:Substantive competency determinations under
320:, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), is a decision by the
190:(5th Cir. 2006); cert. granted, Jan. 5, 2007
93:
777:Brief of the State of Texas as respondent
568:List of United States Supreme Court cases
451:
79:Learn how and when to remove this message
297:Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito
179:Denial of habeas relief affirmed by the
42:This article includes a list of general
734:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
579:
91:2007 United States Supreme Court case
7:
322:Supreme Court of the United States
109:Supreme Court of the United States
48:it lacks sufficient corresponding
25:
811:United States Supreme Court cases
711:930 (2007) is available from:
102:
33:
377:Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
816:2007 in United States case law
1:
636:Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal
563:List of criminal competencies
343:Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal
826:Capital punishment in Texas
752:Transcript of oral argument
747:Supplemental briefing order
847:
767:Merits brief of petitioner
725:Oyez (oral argument audio)
409:writing for the majority.
397:appearing for the state.
306:
214:
199:
101:
683:"Panetti v. Quarterman"
534:Justice Clarence Thomas
308:U.S. Const. amend. VIII
63:more precise citations.
701:Panetti v. Quarterman
587:Panetti v. Quarterman
435:claim did not become
317:Panetti v. Quarterman
161:127 S. Ct. 2842; 168
118:Decided June 28, 2007
116:Argued April 18, 2007
97:Panetti v. Quarterman
666:448 F.3d 815
401:Opinion of the Court
508:had been "flawed".
261:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
742:Question presented
611:Ford v. Wainwright
529:Dissenting opinion
383:Ford v. Wainwright
337:Ford v. Wainwright
328:to be executed in
225:Associate Justices
661:Panetti v. Dretke
313:
312:
89:
88:
81:
16:(Redirected from
838:
738:
732:
729:
723:
720:
714:
687:
686:
679:
673:
663:
657:
651:
632:
626:
607:
601:
584:
210:Court membership
106:
105:
94:
84:
77:
73:
70:
64:
59:this article by
50:inline citations
37:
36:
29:
21:
846:
845:
841:
840:
839:
837:
836:
835:
796:
795:
791:The Daily Texan
736:
730:
727:
721:
718:
712:
696:
691:
690:
681:
680:
676:
659:
658:
654:
633:
629:
608:
604:
585:
581:
576:
554:
531:
497:
454:
415:
407:Anthony Kennedy
403:
352:
263:
253:Clarence Thomas
251:
241:Anthony Kennedy
239:
229:John P. Stevens
166:
117:
111:
92:
85:
74:
68:
65:
55:Please help to
54:
38:
34:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
844:
842:
834:
833:
828:
823:
818:
813:
808:
798:
797:
794:
793:
784:
779:
774:
769:
764:
759:
754:
749:
744:
739:
695:
694:External links
692:
689:
688:
674:
652:
627:
602:
578:
577:
575:
572:
571:
570:
565:
560:
553:
550:
530:
527:
496:
490:
453:
450:
414:
411:
402:
399:
351:
348:
311:
310:
304:
303:
299:
298:
295:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
265:Stephen Breyer
237:Antonin Scalia
226:
223:
218:
212:
211:
207:
206:
197:
196:
192:
191:
177:
173:
172:
168:
167:
160:
144:
140:
139:
134:
130:
129:
124:
123:Full case name
120:
119:
113:
112:
107:
99:
98:
90:
87:
86:
41:
39:
32:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
843:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
807:
804:
803:
801:
792:
788:
785:
783:
780:
778:
775:
773:
770:
768:
765:
763:
760:
758:
755:
753:
750:
748:
745:
743:
740:
735:
726:
717:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
693:
684:
678:
675:
671:
667:
662:
656:
653:
649:
646:
642:
638:
637:
631:
628:
624:
621:
617:
613:
612:
606:
603:
599:
596:
592:
588:
583:
580:
573:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
555:
551:
549:
547:
543:
539:
535:
528:
526:
523:
517:
515:
509:
507:
501:
495:
491:
489:
487:
483:
479:
473:
471:
466:
461:
459:
449:
447:
443:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
412:
410:
408:
400:
398:
396:
392:
387:
385:
384:
378:
372:
370:
369:Fifth Circuit
364:
360:
358:
357:schizophrenia
349:
347:
345:
344:
339:
338:
333:
332:
331:habeas corpus
327:
323:
319:
318:
309:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
281:Case opinions
279:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:Chief Justice
216:
215:
213:
208:
204:
203:habeas corpus
198:
193:
189:
186:
182:
181:Fifth Circuit
178:
174:
169:
164:
158:
157:
152:
149:
145:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
125:
121:
114:
110:
100:
95:
83:
80:
72:
69:February 2008
62:
58:
52:
51:
45:
40:
31:
30:
27:
19:
18:Scott Panetti
700:
677:
660:
655:
650: (1998).
634:
630:
625: (1986).
609:
605:
600: (2007).
586:
582:
545:
541:
537:
532:
521:
518:
513:
510:
505:
502:
498:
493:
485:
481:
477:
474:
469:
464:
462:
457:
455:
445:
441:
432:
418:
416:
413:Jurisdiction
404:
390:
388:
381:
373:
365:
361:
353:
341:
335:
329:
316:
315:
314:
302:Laws applied
273:Samuel Alito
268:
256:
249:David Souter
244:
232:
221:John Roberts
205:proceedings.
171:Case history
154:
126:
75:
66:
47:
26:
672: 2006).
429:term of art
61:introducing
800:Categories
574:References
350:Background
326:competency
133:Docket no.
44:references
163:L. Ed. 2d
143:Citations
831:Ted Cruz
699:Text of
670:5th Cir.
552:See also
395:Ted Cruz
286:Majority
685:. Oyez.
440:unripe
294:Dissent
195:Holding
137:06-6407
57:improve
737:
731:
728:
722:
719:
716:Justia
713:
668: (
664:,
639:,
614:,
589:,
456:Under
340:, and
271:
269:·
267:
259:
257:·
255:
247:
245:·
243:
235:
233:·
231:
183:, 448
46:, but
707:
643:
618:
593:
176:Prior
709:U.S.
645:U.S.
620:U.S.
595:U.S.
546:Ford
542:Ford
538:Ford
522:Ford
514:Ford
506:Ford
494:Ford
486:Ford
482:Ford
478:Ford
470:Ford
465:Ford
458:Ford
446:Ford
442:Ford
437:ripe
433:Ford
420:Ford
391:Ford
185:F.3d
156:more
148:U.S.
146:551
705:551
648:637
641:523
623:399
616:477
598:930
591:551
188:815
165:662
151:930
802::
703:,
548:.
472:.
346:.
159:)
153:(
82:)
76:(
71:)
67:(
53:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.