Panetti v. Quarterman
127 S.Ct. 2842 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a prisoner who, due to severe mental illness, has a delusional or psychotic belief that prevents them from having a rational, as opposed to a merely factual, understanding of the reason for their execution. Additionally, a federal habeas petition raising a claim of incompetency to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright is not "second or successive" if it is the first time the claim was ripe for adjudication.
Facts:
- Scott Louis Panetti had a long history of severe mental illness, including hospitalizations for psychosis, delusions, and hallucinations, for which he had been prescribed potent antipsychotic medication.
- In 1986, Panetti's wife described a psychotic episode where he became convinced the devil had possessed their home, leading him to bury valuables and perform rituals to cleanse it.
- In 1992, Panetti dressed in camouflage clothing and broke into the home of his estranged wife’s parents.
- In front of his wife and daughter, Panetti shot and killed his wife's mother and father.
- He then held his wife and daughter hostage overnight before surrendering to the police.
- A few months before his 1995 capital murder trial, Panetti stopped taking his prescribed antipsychotic medication.
- During his trial, where he represented himself, Panetti's standby counsel described his behavior as "bizarre," "scary," and "trance-like."
Procedural Posture:
- In 1995, a Texas state trial court jury convicted Scott Panetti of capital murder and sentenced him to death.
- Panetti's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and his state habeas petitions were denied by the Texas courts.
- Panetti filed a first federal habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which was denied. This petition did not contain a claim of incompetency to be executed.
- After Texas set an execution date in 2003, Panetti filed a motion in state court claiming for the first time that he was incompetent to be executed. The state court denied the motion without a hearing.
- Panetti then filed a second federal habeas petition. The federal district court stayed the execution to allow the state court to reconsider the claim.
- The state court appointed two experts who found Panetti competent, and subsequently found him competent without holding a hearing or ruling on his motions for funds for his own expert.
- Returning to federal court, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing but, bound by Fifth Circuit precedent, denied the habeas petition, finding Panetti competent under the circuit's restrictive test.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the execution of a prisoner who has a factual awareness of the State's stated reason for his execution but whose severe mental illness prevents him from rationally understanding the connection between his crime and his punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on executing an insane prisoner requires more than the prisoner's factual awareness of the link between the crime and the punishment; it requires a rational understanding of that connection, which can be obstructed by severe delusions. First, the Court held it had jurisdiction because Panetti's claim of incompetency to be executed, first raised after his execution date was set, was not a barred "second or successive" habeas petition under AEDPA. Requiring prisoners to file such unripe claims in their first habeas petition would be inefficient and perverse. Second, the Texas state court's procedures were constitutionally inadequate under Ford v. Wainwright because, after Panetti made a substantial showing of incompetency, the court failed to provide him a fair opportunity to present his own expert evidence in response to the court-appointed experts' report. This unreasonable application of Ford means the state court's competency finding is not entitled to deference. Finally, the Fifth Circuit's test for competency, which only requires awareness of the fact of execution and the factual predicate for it, is too restrictive. The retributive purpose of the death penalty is not served if a prisoner's mental illness and gross delusions place his awareness of the crime and punishment in a context so far removed from reality that he cannot comprehend its meaning. A prisoner's awareness of the state's stated reason is not the same as a rational understanding of it.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The Eighth Amendment, as interpreted by the controlling opinion in Ford, only forbids executing those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it; it does not require a "rational understanding." First, the Court should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Panetti's claim was plainly a "second or successive" habeas application under AEDPA, as he failed to raise it in his initial petition. The majority creates an unsupported, special exemption for Ford claims. Second, the state court did not unreasonably apply Ford's procedural requirements. Panetti failed to make the required "substantial threshold showing of insanity," and even if he had, the state court provided him the opportunity to submit evidence and argument, which is all the controlling Ford opinion requires. Third, the majority improperly imposes a new substantive "rational understanding" standard without conducting any Eighth Amendment analysis and in contravention of the controlling Ford opinion's focus on "awareness." The Court of Appeals correctly applied existing precedent, and its decision should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and expands the substantive standard for competency to be executed first established in Ford v. Wainwright. It moves the inquiry beyond mere factual awareness to a more nuanced standard of "rational understanding," requiring courts to consider the effect of severe delusions on a prisoner's comprehension of their punishment's meaning and purpose. This creates a higher bar for the state to clear before executing a prisoner with a documented severe mental illness and will likely lead to more extensive evidentiary hearings on the nature of a prisoner's delusional beliefs. The jurisdictional holding also creates an important practical exception to AEDPA's strict "second or successive" petition bar for Ford claims, ensuring that such claims can be heard when they become ripe.
Unlock the full brief for Panetti v. Quarterman