U.S. Supreme Court Stays Alabama Execution to Consider Vernon Madison’s Competency to Be Executed

The United States Supreme Court has stayed the exe­cu­tion of Vernon Madison to con­sid­er for a sec­ond time ques­tions relat­ed to his com­pe­ten­cy to be executed. 

In a 6 – 3 vote, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dis­sent­ing, the Court halt­ed Alabama​’s sched­uled January 25 exe­cu­tion of Madison ​“pend­ing the dis­po­si­tion of the peti­tion for a writ of cer­tio­rari” he had filed seek­ing review of his com­pe­ten­cy to be exe­cut­ed. That peti­tion was based upon new evi­dence of his dete­ri­o­rat­ing men­tal con­di­tion and that the doc­tor whose opin­ion state courts had relied upon in find­ing him com­pe­tent had been addict­ed to drugs, was forg­ing pre­scrip­tions, and was subsequently arrested. 

Madison — who has no mem­o­ry of the crime he com­mit­ted as a result of a suc­ces­sion of strokes that have caused demen­tia — has been chal­leng­ing his com­pe­ten­cy to be exe­cut­ed for more than two years. 

In May 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit grant­ed Madison a stay of exe­cu­tion to con­sid­er his com­pe­ten­cy claim, and the Supreme Court dead­locked at 4 – 4 on whether to vacate that stay. The Eleventh Circuit sub­se­quent­ly ruled in March 2017 that Madison was incom­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed, say­ing that the Alabama state courts had act­ed unrea­son­ably in find­ing him com­pe­tent. The U.S. Supreme Court over­turned that deci­sion in November 2017, rein­stat­ing the state-court rul­ing and clear­ing the way for Alabama to issue the lat­est death warrant. 

After the Supreme Court’s rul­ing, Madison’s attor­neys returned to the state courts with the new evi­dence. The state court, once again, denied him relief, lead­ing to Madison’s request to the Supreme Court for a stay. 

The stay will pro­vide the Court time to review two sep­a­rate peti­tions filed by Madison’s lawyers. The first affords the Court the oppor­tu­ni­ty to address whether the Eighth Amendment per­mits ​“the State to exe­cute a pris­on­er whose men­tal dis­abil­i­ty leaves him with­out mem­o­ry of his com­mis­sion of the cap­i­tal offense.” The sec­ond peti­tion chal­lenges the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of Madison’s death sentence itself. 

Madison was sen­tenced to death by an Alabama tri­al judge despite the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion that he receive a life sen­tence. Since the time of his sen­tence, Alabama has repealed the por­tion of its law per­mit­ting ​“judi­cial over­ride” of a jury’s life rec­om­men­da­tion, and no state now autho­rizes that practice. 

Madison’s exe­cu­tion date has attract­ed inter­na­tion­al atten­tion because of his severe­ly impaired men­tal con­di­tion. On January 24, David O’Sullivan, the European Union’s Ambassador to the United States, wrote to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey with ​“an urgent human­i­tar­i­an appeal” for her to recon­sid­er the state’s deci­sion to exe­cute Madison, cit­ing ​“his major neu­rocog­ni­tive dis­or­der.” The let­ter ​“note[d] with con­cern that there is undis­put­ed evi­dence that Mr. Madison has suf­fered mul­ti­ple strokes, includ­ing a thal­a­m­ic stroke result­ing in encephalo­ma­la­cia, that have dam­aged mul­ti­ple parts of his brain, includ­ing those respon­si­ble for mem­o­ry.” It also remind­ed Alabama that “[t]he exe­cu­tion of per­sons suf­fer­ing from any men­tal ill­ness or hav­ing an intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty is in con­tra­dic­tion to the min­i­mum stan­dards of human rights, as set forth in sev­er­al inter­na­tion­al human rights instruments.” 

Madison’s lead coun­sel, Bryan Stevenson, said that he was ​“thrilled” by the Court’s deci­sion to grant a stay and that “[k]illing a frag­ile man suf­fer­ing from demen­tia is unnec­es­sary and cruel.”