Summary
U.S. Supreme Court case involving a Texas double-murderer’s claim that he cannot be executed because he is mentally ill. In 1992, the defendant, Scott Panetti, murdered his wife's parents with a sawed-off shotgun in front of his wife and three-year-old daughter, who had moved in with the victims to escape his violent behavior. Following his arrest, he confessed to the murders. After being found mentally competent to stand trial, Panetti insisted on representing himself. He presented an insanity defense, claiming that an alternate personality named “Sarge” committed the murders. After his conviction, sentence, and multiple appeals, the state court found him competent to be executed. The federal District Court and Court of Appeals later affirmed his competency and his death sentence. Panetti, along with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Bar Association, and the American Psychological Association, is seeking a decision to broaden the standard for incompetence for execution. The present standard requires that the murderer be able to understand that he committed the murder and will be executed for it, which the federal court found Panetti does. At the request of the Texas Solicitor General, CJLF has joined the case to argue for a decision to maintain the current standard. The Court sent the case back to the lower courts to reconsider, but it did not adopt the sweeping rule proposed by the ABA and others. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
