PRESS RELEASE

The United States Supreme Court will hear argument Wednesday to consider a condemned murderer’s claim that he is too mentally ill to be executed.  At issue in the case of Panetti v. Quarterman, is whether it is unconstitutional to execute a murderer who suffers from mental illness but meets the current standard of competency.  In the current case, the federal courts relied upon a standard of mental competency which requires that the criminal be able to understand that he committed the murder and will be executed for it.  Double-murderer Scott Panetti, who has schizophrenia, claims that this standard is too narrow.

The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation is participating in the case to encourage a decision maintaining a narrow and clearly defined standard.

“Nearly everyone has agreed that insane people should not be executed, but we need a clear, precise definition of what that means,” said Foundation Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “A broad, vague standard would be misused to block the well-deserved executions of numerous murderers who are not insane,” he added.

The case involves Panetti’s conviction for the shotgun murders of his wife’s parents.  Panetti had a long record of violent behavior prior to the murders.  He had been hospitalized on multiple occasions for substance abuse, addiction, personality disorders, depression, and schizophrenia.  Doctors observed that when Panetti took his medication, his mental illness was controlled.

In August 1992, due to his excessive drinking and violent, abusive behavior, Panetti’s second wife Sonja and three-year-old daughter left him.  When they moved in with Sonja’s parents, the Alvarados, Panetti telephoned and threaten to kill them.  Six days after Sonja received a restraining order against Panetti, he awoke early, shaved his head, donned camouflage, armed himself with a shotgun rifle and several knives, and drove to the Alvarados’ home in Fredericksburg, Texas.  When he arrived, Panetti attempted to break down the door to Sonja’s bedroom.  He caught her in the front yard after she ran from the house and hit her in the face with his rifle.  Sonja managed to run back into the house and lock the front door, but Panetti shot the lock off and confronted her parents in the kitchen.  As Sonja and her daughter watched from an adjacent hallway, Panetti shot and killed her father, then placed the shotgun to her mother’s chest and fired, killing her.  He then forced Sonja and the child into his car and drove to his residence, where he held them until he surrendered to police the next day.

Panetti was evaluated by a psychiatrist and was found competent to stand trial for murdering the Alvarados.  He then requested a competency hearing.  At the initial hearing, the jury deadlocked, but a second jury agreed that he was competent.  Prior to trial, Panetti insisted that he represent himself.  At a separate hearing, the judge warned him not to dismiss his legal counsel, but Panetti insisted that he was aware of the charges against him and the penalty he faced.  He told the court that he had the right under Texas law and the U. S. Constitution to represent himself.  When the District Attorney also expressed concern about Panetti representing himself the judge again advised against it, to which Panetti replied, “I understand everything that’s been going on today, sir.  I do, however, feel a little bit insulted that I have been asked the same question so many times, Your Honor.”  The judge ruled that Panetti could represent himself but appointed standby counsel.

At trial Panetti presented an insanity defense, describing his years of mental health problems and claiming that when he did not take his medication, he could not distinguish right from wrong.  He explained that an alternate personality named “Sarge” killed the Alvarados.  The jury did not accept this and found him guilty of both murders.  At a separate sentencing trial, the jury recommended the death penalty.

His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Texas courts on appeal, and his mental competence for execution was upheld on habeas corpus by the federal District Court and Court of Appeals.

When the Supreme Court agreed to consider Panetti’s appeal, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Bar Association, and the American Psychological Association joined him to argue that the standard for incompetence is too narrow to satisfy the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  The Texas Attorney General invited the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation to submit argument to protect the standard used in this case.

In an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, the Foundation argues that the standard used in Panetti’s case is the standard supported by a consensus of the states.  CJLF points out that a new, vague standard for competency would “trigger a wave of last-minute litigation,” causing delays which would “impair the deterrent effect of the death penalty and cost the lives of innocent people.”