The U.S. Supreme Court grant­ed review in two cas­es from Arizona and Ohio to explore 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), defen­dants can­not be exe­cut­ed if they are insane or intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled (men­tal­ly retard­ed). The new cas­es, Ryan v. Gonzalez and Tibbals v. Carter, will decide whether men­tal­ly incom­pe­tent death row 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, found that the defen­dants’ com­pe­ten­cy was nec­es­sary dur­ing fed­er­al habeas review, thus stay­ing the pro­ceed­ings indef­i­nite­ly. The states that asked the Court to review this ques­tion assert­ed that the appeals can go for­ward, despite the defen­dants inabil­i­ty to par­tic­i­pate. The cas­es will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in its next term begin­ning in October.

(L. Denniston, ​“Competency and death row chal­lenges,” SCOTUSblog, March 19, 2012). Read more about Ryan v. Gonzalez ( No. 10 – 930) and Tibbals v. Carter (No. 11 – 218). See Mental Illness and U.S. Supreme Court.

Citation Guide