Stays have been grant­ed in two of the three exe­cu­tions that had still been sched­uled for December. On December 1 in Ohio, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit grant­ed a stay of exe­cu­tion to Jerome Henderson, whose exe­cu­tion had been sched­uled for December 5. Henderson was allowed to join a chal­lenge to the state’s lethal injec­tion pro­to­col. The 6th Circuit denied the state’s request to rehear the issue, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to lift the stay. (Associated Press, Dec. 5, 2006).

In Virginia, Governor Timothy Kaine grant­ed an 18-month stay to Percy Walton on December 4. Walton, who suf­fers from severe men­tal ill­ness, was sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on December 8. Gov. Kaine had ear­li­er grant­ed Walton a 6‑month reprieve in order that more tests could be con­duct­ed on his men­tal com­pe­ten­cy. In a state­ment reprint­ed below, the gov­er­nor stat­ed that Walton was present­ly incom­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed, but that it was pos­si­ble his com­pe­ten­cy could be restored over time. The gov­er­nor indi­cat­ed that a com­mu­ta­tion of the death sen­tence would be pos­si­ble if Walton remains men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent. (Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2006).

Many exe­cu­tions around the coun­try have been held up because of chal­lenges to the lethal injec­tion process. See Lethal Injection. With respect to men­tal ill­ness, anoth­er inmate sched­uled to exe­cut­ed in December, Guy LeGrande in North Carolina, had ear­li­er been grant­ed a stay of exe­cu­tion so that his men­tal sta­tus could be eval­u­at­ed. See Mental Illness.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Office of the Governor

Timothy M. Kaine FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Governor December 4, 2006

Contact: Kevin Hall
Phone: (804) 225‑4260
Cell Phone: (804) 393‑9406
Internet: www​.gov​er​nor​.vir​ginia​.gov

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR TIMOTHY M. KAINE

~ On the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Percy Levar Walton ~

RICHMOND — Governor Timothy M. Kaine today issued the fol­low­ing state­ment on the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Percy Levar Walton:

“On June 8, 2006, I delayed for six months the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Percy Levar Walton. I did so because of sig­nif­i­cant ques­tions about Walton’s mental competence.

“The ques­tion of Walton’s men­tal sta­tus is of the utmost impor­tance because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute a per­son who is men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote in the sem­i­nal case of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ​‘for­bids the exe­cu­tion of those who are unaware of the pun­ish­ment they are about to suf­fer and why they are to suf­fer it.’ He fur­ther con­clud­ed that the exe­cu­tion of a men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent inmate would be a ​‘unique­ly cru­el penal­ty’ where the inmate could not com­pre­hend that they are about to die and could not ​‘pre­pare, men­tal­ly and spir­i­tu­al­ly’ for the execution. 

“These prin­ci­ples have guid­ed my review of Walton’s sched­uled exe­cu­tion. There is no doubt that Walton com­mit­ted hor­rif­ic crimes against inno­cent vic­tims in their own homes, and that the vic­tims’ fam­i­lies have suf­fered great­ly. I have no rea­son to ques­tion the pros­e­cu­tor’s deci­sion to seek the death penal­ty or the court’s deci­sion that death was an appropriate sentence.

“There is also no doubt that the courts have strug­gled with the ques­tion of whether Walton is com­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed. Most recent­ly, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed his men­tal sta­tus and, in a nar­row 7 – 6 major­i­ty rul­ing, deter­mined that Walton was com­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed. The rul­ing was lim­it­ed, how­ev­er, to psy­chi­atric eval­u­a­tions and oth­er infor­ma­tion per­tain­ing to the peri­od from 1997 and 2003.

“Earlier this year, I was pre­sent­ed with evi­dence that Walton’s men­tal state had dete­ri­o­rat­ed since 2003. Due to the con­cerns that courts had expressed about Walton’s men­tal sta­tus and because there was more than a min­i­mal chance that Walton no longer knew why he was to be exe­cut­ed, or that he was even aware of the final pun­ish­ment he was about to receive, I deter­mined that it was impor­tant to have cur­rent and inde­pen­dent infor­ma­tion about Walton’s men­tal con­di­tion in order to com­ply with the law for­bid­ding exe­cu­tion of a men­tal­ly incompetent person.

“Over the past six months, I have been pro­vid­ed with such cur­rent and inde­pen­dent infor­ma­tion per­tain­ing to Walton’s men­tal state from a num­ber of sources. The addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion has includ­ed a thor­ough review of records main­tained by the Department of Corrections, updat­ed eval­u­a­tions by psy­chi­a­trists, and infor­ma­tion pro­vid­ed by per­sons who have inter­act­ed with Walton on a reg­u­lar basis over a peri­od of years.

“After review­ing this infor­ma­tion, I am com­pelled to con­clude that Walton is severe­ly men­tal­ly impaired and meets the Supreme Court’s def­i­n­i­tion of men­tal incom­pe­tence. Because one can­not rea­son­ably con­clude that Walton is ful­ly aware of the pun­ish­ment he is about to suf­fer and why he is to suf­fer it, his exe­cu­tion can­not pro­ceed at this time.

“At the same time, it is with­in the realm of pos­si­bil­i­ty — though unlike­ly — that Walton’s men­tal impair­ment is not per­ma­nent. Accordingly, a com­mu­ta­tion of his sen­tence is not appro­pri­ate at this time. Rather, con­tin­ued obser­va­tion of Walton’s con­di­tion over a more extend­ed peri­od of time is the appro­pri­ate course of action.

“Therefore, I delay Walton’s exe­cu­tion date for 18 months, until June 10, 2008, to per­mit fur­ther obser­va­tion of Walton’s men­tal con­di­tion and com­pe­tence. On or pri­or to that date, I will deter­mine whether addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion war­rants a different conclusion.

“My thoughts and prayers today are with the fam­i­lies and friends of the vic­tims.”

# # #

Citation Guide