Bruce Webster faces a fed­er­al exe­cu­tion despite new evi­dence – includ­ing eval­u­a­tions by three doc­tors – indi­cat­ing he is intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled. Although the U.S. Supreme Court banned the exe­cu­tion of the ​“men­tal­ly retard­ed” (now referred to as ​“intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled”) in 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in April denied Webster’s request for a hear­ing on his men­tal capac­i­ty claim. The court found that Webster had exhaust­ed all his appeals and that the court could not con­sid­er new evi­dence unless it relat­ed to Webster’s inno­cence. The fact that the new evi­dence would make him inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty under the con­sti­tu­tion was insuf­fi­cient to grant him a hear­ing. Judge Jacques Wiener, writ­ing for the Fifth Circuit, con­tend­ed that the court was lim­it­ed because Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996: ​“We today have no choice but to con­done just such an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al pun­ish­ment.” The judge agreed that the evi­dence would show that Webster was intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled, ​“If the evi­dence that Webster attempts to intro­duce here were ever pre­sent­ed to a judge or jury for con­sid­er­a­tion on the mer­its, it is vir­tu­al­ly guar­an­teed that he would be found to be men­tal­ly retard­ed.” David Bruck, a death penal­ty expert at Washington and Lee University law school said, ​“It’s an out­ra­geous sit­u­a­tion. Sometimes the law just does­n’t fit the facts. This is one of those times.”

Webster was con­vict­ed in 1996, pri­or to the Supreme Court’s rul­ing on men­tal retar­da­tion. He and oth­er co-defen­dants abduct­ed a woman from Texas and mur­dered her in Arkansas. 

(J. Trahan, ​“Mental retar­da­tion evi­dence may not save Arlington teenager’s killer from death cham­ber,” Dallas Morning News, July 18, 2010). See Intellectual Disability and Federal Death Penalty.

Tags
Citation Guide