On October 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will con­sid­er cas­es from Arizona and Ohio ques­tion­ing whether death penal­ty appeals can con­tin­ue if the defen­dant is men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent. Under the Court’s pri­or rul­ings in Ford v. Wainwright (1986) and in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), cap­i­tal defen­dants can­not be exe­cut­ed if they are incom­pe­tent or intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled (men­tal­ly retard­ed). In the upcom­ing cas­es, Ryan v. Gonzalez and Tibbals v. Carter, the Court will deter­mine whether men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent inmates are enti­tled to a stay of fed­er­al habeas pro­ceed­ings because they can­not assist their coun­sel. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, respec­tive­ly, held that the defen­dants’ com­pe­ten­cy was nec­es­sary, thus stay­ing the pro­ceed­ings indef­i­nite­ly. The states that asked the Court to review this ques­tion assert­ed that the appeals should go for­ward, since no new infor­ma­tion will be con­sid­ered. The American Psychiatric Association sub­mit­ted an ami­cus brief rec­om­mend­ing ​“that post-con­vic­tion pro­ceed­ings ini­ti­at­ed by a cap­i­tal pris­on­er should be sus­pend­ed when a men­tal dis­or­der or dis­abil­i­ty pre­vents the pris­on­er from under­stand­ing his sit­u­a­tion or com­mu­ni­cat­ing with his coun­sel, and when such com­mu­ni­ca­tion would be nec­es­sary to the fair adju­di­ca­tion of that prisoner’s legal chal­lenges to his con­vic­tion or sentence.”

(J. Floyd, ​“What to Watch for in this Action-Packed Supreme Court Term,” WNYC, October 1, 2012). See Mental Illness and U.S. Supreme Court. Listen to DPIC’s pod­cast on Mental Illness and on the Supreme Court.

Citation Guide