FEDERAL COURT RULING
DELAYING TENNESSEE EXECUTION OVERTURNED
The United States Supreme Court has overturned a federal
appeals court ruling which manipulated procedures to grant additional
delay to a murderer’s execution. The high court decision in the
case of Bell v. Thompson held that the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals had “abused its discretion” in a June 2004 ruling.
The appeals court had reversed itself on a claim it previously deemed
meritless and ordered further hearings on a sentence for a crime committed
20 years ago. Today’s reversal by the Supreme Court reinstates
the sentence.
In the high court’s 5 to 4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated,
“Tennessee expended considerable time and resources in seeking
to enforce a capital sentence rendered 20 years ago, a sentence that
reflects the judgment of the citizens of Tennessee that Thompson’s
crimes merit the ultimate punishment. By withholding the mandate for
months—based on evidence that supports only an arguable constitutional
claim . . . the Court of Appeals did not accord the appropriate level
of respect to that judgment.”
“Today’s decision indicates that when the Supreme Court denies
review of a case, unless there is serious doubt of the defendant’s
guilt, the lower federal courts are not entitled to conduct additional
review,” said Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation. The Foundation filed an amicus curiae
(friend of the court) brief encouraging a decision to overturn the Sixth
Circuit ruling.
The case involves the brutal robbery and murder of a woman in Shelbyville,
Tennessee, on New Year’s Day in 1985. That day, Gregory Thompson
and a teenage, female companion abducted Brenda Lane at knifepoint in
a Wal-Mart parking lot. Thompson forced Mrs. Lane to drive to a remote
area where he stabbed her repeatedly and then ran over her with her
own car. The car was later found in Marietta, Georgia, where Thompson
lived. At the time of Thompson’s arrest, a traffic ticket found
in his jacket showed that he had been cited while driving the victim’s
car from Tennessee to Georgia. Shortly after his arrest, Thompson confessed
to the murder and showed police the location of the victim’s body.
At trial, a pathologist testified that Mrs. Lane had suffered multiple
stab wounds and would have remained conscious until she bled to death.
After considering the overwhelming evidence of guilt, a jury convicted
Thompson of first-degree murder.
During the subsequent sentencing hearing, Thompson’s attorney
introduced the testimony of family members and friends to encourage
mercy from the jury. A defense psychologist testified that Thompson
felt remorse for the murder. The prosecution presented evidence of Thompson’s
violent record and dishonorable discharge from the Navy. A prosecution
psychologist testified that he found no remorse in Thompson and that
he had tried to fake a mental disorder, claiming he heard voices and
was unable to read. After reviewing this evidence, the jury found three
aggravating circumstances related to the murder and sentenced Thompson
to death.
Thompson’s multiple claims of trial and sentencing error were
rejected by the state appellate courts in two rounds of review. Later,
a federal District Court denied Thompson’s claims on habeas corpus,
including his mental claims. The court refused to reopen the case when
Thompson submitted an additional psychologist’s report he had previously
omitted. In January 2003, the Sixth Circuit upheld the District Court’s
rejection of Thompson’s claims. In December of that year, the United
States Supreme Court refused to hear Thompson’s appeal. The Tennessee
Supreme Court subsequently set an execution date for August 19, 2004.
As this was occurring and without giving the state notice or any opportunity
to present argument, a judge of the federal Court of Appeals, who had
written the earlier opinion affirming Thompson’s conviction and
sentence, conducted his own review of the case. Six months later, on
June 23, 2004, the panel reversed its earlier ruling and ordered the
District Court to accept Thompson’s “new” psychiatric
evaluation and hold another hearing to determine his mental condition.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Tennessee’s appeal of this
surprise ruling, CJLF joined the case. The Foundation argued that the
Sixth Circuit manipulated legal procedure to reconsider Thompson’s
claims and misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent and federal law. CJLF’s
brief demonstrated that further litigation after the Supreme Court declines
to take a case has become common in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which covers the Far West. In today’s ruling, the Supreme Court
states that such litigation “will be infrequent.” “We
certainly hope so,” said Scheidegger. “That would be a welcome
change.”
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available
for comment at (916) 446-0345.
The Foundation has helped win seven U. S. Supreme Court decisions
during the current term.
CJLF’s brief in Bell v. Thompson is available on the internet
at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/ThompG.pdf
|
