The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed a rul­ing by a Texas fed­er­al dis­trict court that had denied Scott Panetti (pic­tured), a severe­ly men­tal­ly ill death-row pris­on­er, the appoint­ment of coun­sel and fund­ing for a men­tal health expert and inves­ti­ga­tor to eval­u­ate his com­pe­ten­cy to be exe­cut­ed. In a 2 – 1 rul­ing issued July 11, 2017, the Fifth Circuit, not­ing that ​“a decade has now passed since the last deter­mi­na­tion of whether this con­ced­ed­ly men­tal­ly ill peti­tion­er is com­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed,” ordered Panetti’s case returned to the low­er fed­er­al court to appoint coun­sel, pro­vide funds for an eval­u­a­tion, and grant coun­sel suf­fi­cient time to pre­pare a peti­tion on Panetti’s com­pe­tence. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1986 rul­ing in Ford v. Wainwright, pris­on­ers who become men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent — that is, so men­tal­ly ill or cog­ni­tive­ly impaired that they are ​“unaware of the pun­ish­ment they’re about to suf­fer and why they are to suf­fer it” — can­not be exe­cut­ed. Panetti has twice been grant­ed stays of exe­cu­tion relat­ed to his men­tal health and com­pe­ten­cy to be exe­cut­ed. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Texas fed­er­al courts had mis­ap­plied the Ford stan­dard when they ignored the effect of Panetti’s para­noid schiz­o­phrenic delu­sions on whether he had a ratio­nal under­stand­ing of his pend­ing exe­cu­tion. The Court wrote: ​“Gross delu­sions stem­ming from a severe men­tal dis­or­der may put an aware­ness of a link between a crime and its pun­ish­ment in a con­text so far removed from real­i­ty that the pun­ish­ment can serve no prop­er pur­pose.” On remand, the low­er courts denied Panetti’s chal­lenge to his com­pe­ten­cy with­out pro­vid­ing him a lawyer and a men­tal health eval­u­a­tion to devel­op his claim. In a state­ment, Panetti’s lawyers said, ​“We are grate­ful that the court found that Mr. Panetti’s near­ly four decades of doc­u­ment­ed schiz­o­phre­nia and severe men­tal ill­ness pro­vid­ed a suf­fi­cient show­ing to obtain experts and resources to pur­sue the claim that he is cur­rent­ly incom­pe­tent for exe­cu­tion.… Mr. Panetti has not been eval­u­at­ed by any men­tal health experts since 2007 and his severe men­tal ill­ness has only wors­ened while in prison. We are con­fi­dent that when the low­er court is pre­sent­ed with all the evi­dence, it will find that Mr. Panetti, a schiz­o­phrenic man who insist­ed on rep­re­sent­ing him­self at tri­al and attempt­ed to sub­poe­na the Pope, John F. Kennedy, and Jesus Christ, is not now com­pe­tent for execution.”

(J. McCullough, ​“Texas death row inmate Scott Panetti to get fur­ther com­pe­ten­cy review,” Texas Tribune, July 11, 2017; R. Autullo, ​“Death row inmate who shot in-laws in Fredericksburg grant­ed eval­u­a­tion,” Austin American-Statesman, July 11, 2017; ​“Texas death-row inmate who tried to sub­poe­na Jesus at tri­al wins review of men­tal com­pe­tence,” Associated Press, July 11, 2017; G. Wiercioch and K. Kase, ​“Statement from Mr. Panetti’s legal team,” Press Release, July 11, 2017.) Read the Fifth Circuit’s deci­sion in Panetti v. Davis and the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Panetti v. Quarterman. See Mental Illness.

Citation Guide