On January 8, the U.S. Supreme Court unan­i­mous­ly reject­ed indef­i­nite delays in the fed­er­al review of death penal­ty cas­es when inmates are men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent to assist their attor­neys. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas said such appeals are usu­al­ly based on estab­lished facts, not requir­ing fur­ther input from the defen­dant. ​“Given the back­ward-look­ing, record-based nature of most fed­er­al habeas pro­ceed­ings, coun­sel can gen­er­al­ly pro­vide effec­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tion to a habeas peti­tion­er regard­less of the petitioner’s com­pe­tence,” he said. ​“Attorneys are quite capa­ble of review­ing the state-court record, iden­ti­fy­ing legal errors, and mar­shal­ing rel­e­vant argu­ments, even with­out their clients’ assis­tance.” The opin­ion con­sol­i­dat­ed the cas­es of Ryan v. Gonzales (Arizona) and Tibbals v. Carter (Ohio). In Carter’s case, the Court left open the win­dow for a tem­po­rary stay if his appeals rely on evi­dence out­side the court record and if he might regain com­pe­tence. ​“If a dis­trict court con­cludes that [Carter’s] claim could sub­stan­tial­ly ben­e­fit from the petitioner’s assis­tance, the dis­trict court should take into account the like­li­hood that the peti­tion­er will regain com­pe­tence in the fore­see­able future,” Thomas wrote. ​“Where there is no rea­son­able hope of com­pe­tence, a stay is inap­pro­pri­ate and mere­ly frus­trates the state’s attempts to defend its pre­sump­tive­ly valid judgment.”

Based on an ear­li­er Court deci­sion (Ford v. Wainwright (1986)), if an inmate is men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent at the time of his exe­cu­tion, he may not be put to death.

(D. Cassens Weiss, ​“Supreme Court Allows Some Limited Stays for Competency in Habeas Corpus Appeals,” ABA Journal, January 8, 2013.) Read the full opin­ion. See Supreme Court and Mental Illness.

Citation Guide