ILNews

SCOTUS blocks execution

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Supreme Court of the United States decided today that a Texas man is considered mentally ill and should not be put to death.

With that much-anticipated decision, Indiana's top jurists will now use that case to decide the fate of a New Albany man convicted of shooting a state trooper in 1993.

In January, the Indiana Supreme Court halted the execution of Norman Timberlake to await word from the nation's highest court on the similar case from Texas. Our justices disagreed on the delay, issuing a 3-2 decision that was the second time in a month they'd disagreed on this particular case and the underlying issue. They decided to wait because the Texas case could change the standard for executing mentally ill inmates and revise the legal definition of "insanity" or "mental illness."

"Timberlake's execution may prove to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment," the Indiana justices wrote in the order. "We grant a stay to prevent learning the answer to that question after it is too late."

Today's decision from a divided SCOTUS paves the way for the potential block of Timberlake's execution.

The federal court ruled 5-4 in the case of Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407, which reverses the Court of Appeals and remands it for further proceedings. A 35-page majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, with which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 21-page dissent, with which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito concurred.

The SCOTUS considered whether it violates a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute a delusional inmate who does not understand why he is being put to death. Scott Louis Panetti is on death row in Texas for murdering his wife's parents in 1992. His attorneys argued that Panetti is mentally ill and suffers from delusional beliefs that the state was "in league with the forces of evil to prevent him from preaching the Gospel."

In today's ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote that the lower courts should have considered this argument. The majority relied on a 1986 case that held the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from carrying out a death sentence upon an insane prisoner.

"The prohibition applies despite a prisoner's earlier competency to be held responsible for committing a crime and to be tried for it," the court held. "Prior findings of competency do not foreclose a prisoner from proving he is incompetent to be executed because of his present mental condition."

In its analysis of Panetti's argument, Justice Kennedy wrote, "A prisoner's awareness of the State's rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it. Petitioner's submission is that he suffers from a severe, documented mental illness that is the source of gross delusions preventing him from comprehending the meaning and purpose of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. This argument, we hold, should have been considered."

But dissenting justices wrote the majority is imposing a "new standard for determining incompetency."

"By contrast, the Court's approach today - settling upon a preferred outcome without resort to the law - is foreign to the judicial role as I know it," Justice Thomas wrote. "Because the Court's ruling misinterprets AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), refuses to defer to the state court as AEDPA requires, and rejects the Court of Appeals' approach without any constitutional analysis, I respectfully dissent."

Indianapolis attorney Brent Westerfeld, who is representing Timberlake, could not be reached following today's SCOTUS opinion, but he said earlier this morning that he was anxiously awaiting the ruling to see how Timberlake's case might proceed.

The Indiana Supreme could rule on the Timberlake case anytime, but it will likely come later this summer or in the fall. The court could issue a decision, ask for supplemental briefs to further consider the case, or schedule oral arguments before making a decision.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT