Scott Louis Panetti Schizophrenia blamed for 1992 murder of Wisconsin parents in law

Scott Louis Panetti Schizophrenia blamed for 1992 murder of Wisconsin parents in law ---
tags: rachel maddow defender, mental illness, faking mental illness, killed parents, Texas, death penalty, malingering, pseudo commando, military dress, military tactics, looks like personal terrorist, Veteran suspect, shaved head

September 8, 1992 Scott Louis Panetti Schizophrenia blamed for 1992 murder of Wisconsin parents in law In 1992 Scott Panetti killed Joe Gaitan Alvarado, Jr., 55, and Amanda Carrion Alvarado, 56  his mother-in-law and his father-in-law, the parents of his second wife, Sonja Alvarado. She left with her children to her parents and obtained a restraining order against her husband. The US Navy veteran shaved his head, dressed in military fatigues and drove to the Alvarados' home, taking a sawn-off shotgun and a rifle with him. He broke into the house and shot his parents-in-law at close range with the rifle. He allowed Sonja and their daughter to leave. Later that day he changed into a suit and gave himself up to the police. He subsequently said that "Sarge" (an auditory hallucination) controlled him at the time of the crime, that divine intervention had meant that the victims did not suffer, and that demons had been laughing at him as he left the house.He then held his wife and daughter hostage for the night, and surrendered to police the next morning. Three years later, Panetti was tried in a Texas state court for capital murder He now faces the death penalty, but it is disputed whether a man who has been diagnosed as mentally ill can be executed if state experts determine he is faking mental illness and show he is capable of thinking clearly when he wants to. Many terrorists use mental illness as a cover story.

*Facts

1. psychotic disorders do not offer the same thresholds as intellectual disability or youth. There’s no number, like an IQ or an age, that courts can use to separate the insane from the healthy
2. prosecutors have explicitly argued he might be feigning mental illness. Defending himself at trial in 1994, Panetti flipped back and forth between incoherent ramblings and moments of clarity
3. Both of the experts for the state concluded that Panetti was malingering in order to avoid execution

*Reference

• Scott Louis Panetti | Murderpedia, A psychiatrist who testified for the prosecution agreed with the previous diagnoses ofschizophrenia, and that Scott Panetti's delusional thinking could interfere ...
• Wikipedia: Panetti v. Quarterman 12/8/2014

Panetti v. Quarterman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panetti v. Quarterman
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 18, 2007 Decided June 28, 2007
Full case name	Scott Louis Panetti v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Citations	551 U.S. 930 (more) 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662
Prior history	Denial of habeas relief affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, 448 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 2006); cert. granted, Jan. 5, 2007
Holding
Criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpusproceedings.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpusproceedings. This decision reaffirmed the Court's prior holdings in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S.399 (1986), and Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998).

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Background
• 2 Majority opinion
  • 2.1 Jurisdiction
  • 2.2 Procedures for determining a Death Row inmate's competence to be executed
  • 2.3 Substantive competency determinations under Ford
• 3 Dissenting opinion
• 4 See also
• 5 External links

Background[edit]

In 1992 Scott Panetti killed his mother-in-law and his father-in-law, the parents of his second wife, Sonja Alvarado. He then held his wife and daughter hostage for the night, and surrendered to police the next morning. Three years later, Panetti was tried in a Texas state court for capital murder. Panetti sought to represent himself, and so the trial court ordered a competency hearing. Panetti was found to be suffering from a "fragmented personality, delusions, and hallucinations" for which he had been hospitalized over 12 times and for which he had been prescribed high doses of powerful psychiatric drugs for schizophrenia. Panetti's ex-wife testified at the competency hearing and described one of Panetti's psychotic episodes in 1986. During that episode, Panetti had "become convinced the devil had possessed their home and, in an effort to cleanse their surroundings, Panetti had buried a number of valuables next to the house and engaged in other rituals." Even with this testimony, Panetti was found competent to be tried and to waive his right to counsel.

A veteran of the US Navy, Panetti's defense at trial was that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Standby counsel related that Panetti's behavior was "scary", "bizarre", and "trance-like." It was evident to standby counsel, based on Panetti's behavior both in private and before the jury, that Panetti was not competent, and that his behavior made a farce and mockery of the judicial process. Panetti had also allegedly stopped taking his medication a few months before the trial. Indeed, two months after the end of the trial, the trial court found Panetti incompetent to waive his right to state habeas counsel. Nevertheless, Panetti was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

Panetti sought appellate review in the Texas courts, as well as state habeas relief. All these efforts were fruitless. The U.S. Supreme Court twice declined to review Panetti's case. Panetti then filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied, and that denial was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court again declined to review the case.

Once these federal habeas proceedings had ended, the state trial judge, Steven Ables, set an execution date of February 5, 2004. At this point, Panetti claimed that he was incompetent to be executed. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Panetti's appeal, and Panetti filed another federal habeas petition. On February 4, 2004, the federal district court stayed Panetti's execution in order to allow the state courts to adjudicate Panetti's claim of mental incompetence. The state trial court, in turn, appointed two mental health experts to evaluate Panetti. Lawyers defending Panetti were given a one week notice to also acquire mental health experts to also evaluate Panetti. Both of the experts for the state concluded that Panetti was malingering in order to avoid execution. Panetti responded by arguing that the trial court's procedures did not comply with the procedures set forth in Ford v. Wainwright. The state trial court responded by closing the case, ruling that Panetti did not show he was incompetent to be executed. He did not appeal to either the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Instead, he returned to federal court, where another hearing was held. After the hearing the district court concluded that the state courts had not complied with the procedural requirements of Ford. Nevertheless, it denied relief because, under Fifth Circuit precedent, it was enough that Panetti know simply that he was about to be executed and the "factual predicate" for the execution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Panetti's habeas petition, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Majority opinion[edit]

Jurisdiction[edit]

The Court began its opinion by considering its jurisdiction. Panetti had not raised his claim that he was not competent to be executed – what lawyers call a Ford claim – in his first federal habeas petition. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it unless he could overcome the bar on "second or successive" habeas petitions imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The term "second or successive" is a term of art; not every subsequent habeas petition is subject to AEDPA's bar on second or successive habeas petitions. The Court ruled that Panetti's petition was not barred as "second or successive" because his Ford claim did not become ripe until his execution was imminent. It rejected the State's contrary argument because of the perverse results it would have generated – inmates could be forced to litigate their competency to be executed before any signs of mental illness had set in. "An empty formality requiring prisoners to file unripe Fordclaims neither respects the limited legal resources available to the States nor encourages the exhaustion of state remedies." Accordingly, Panetti's Ford claim was not barred by the second-or-successive rule, and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain Panetti's appeal.

Procedures for determining a Death Row inmate's competence to be executed[edit]

Under Ford, once a prisoner seeking a stay of execution makes a "substantial threshold showing of insanity", he must be afforded a fair hearing at which the question of his competence to be executed can be resolved. This means he must have an "opportunity to be heard" by an impartial decisionmaker. In other words, the legal determination of his competence to be executed cannot rest solely on the determination of experts, because doing so would prevent the inmate from offering evidence to rebut any expert's opinion that he was competent to be executed.

The Texas courts did not comply with these minimal procedures in Panetti's case. Panetti was entitled to the procedural protections of Fordbecause he had made the required threshold showing; indeed, if he had not done so, why had the state trial court appointed the mental health experts to evaluate him? The state courts refused to transcribe the proceedings, failed to keep Panetti's counsel apprised of the progress of Panetti's claim of incompetence, and arguably failed to hold the competency hearing required by Texas law. Most importantly, however, the Texas courts did not afford Panetti an opportunity to refute the opinions of the court-appointed experts. Although counsel had asked the trial court to give him money to hire experts of his own, the trial court ended the case without ruling on that request. These deficiencies in the procedures the Texas courts used to determine that Panetti was competent to be executed led the Court to conclude that Panetti did not receive the minimal process due him under Ford.

Under AEDPA's standard for granting relief on a federal constitutional claim, the state court's resolution of that claim must be contrary to, or involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. Ford supplied the clearly established law by which to evaluate the Texas courts' treatment of Panetti's claim. And even though the Ford standard is stated in general terms, it was clear to the Court that the procedures the Texas courts employed did not fit the bill. Because the Texas courts had unreasonably applied Ford when they adjudicated Panetti's claim of incompetence, the Court was free to determine what the proper procedure should have been, and whether Panetti was, in fact, not competent to be executed.

Substantive competency determinations under Ford[edit]

At an evidentiary hearing in the federal district court, four experts testified on Panetti's behalf. One expert opined that Panetti suffered from schizo-affective disorder, resulting in a genuine delusion regarding the reason for his execution. The expert stated that Panetti believed that his execution was part of "spiritual warfare" between the "demons and the forces of the darkness and God and the angels and the forces of light." Panetti understands that the State claims it is executing him for the murders, but believes that the State's reason is a sham and the real reason is that the State wants to stop Panetti from preaching. Panetti's other experts testified to similar conclusions.

The State's witnesses conceded that Panetti was mentally ill, although they resisted the conclusion that Panetti was not competent to be executed. They pointed to the fact that at times Panetti was "clear and lucid", and could understand "certain concepts". Panetti's experts reminded the court that schizophrenia does not diminish a person's cognitive abilities, such that during short interactions the patient may appear lucid. Over time, however, the patient's mental illness would become apparent. Based on this testimony, the Fifth Circuit had held that Panetti's delusions did not render him incompetent. But the Court held that the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of Ford had been "flawed".

For the Fifth Circuit, three of the district conclusions were sufficient to sustain the ruling that Panetti was competent. First, Panetti knew that he had committed the murders. Second, Panetti knew that he was about to be executed. And third, Panetti knew that the State's given reason for executing him was the fact that he had committed the murders. These three facts allowed the Fifth Circuit to ignore the delusions that prevented Panetti from understanding that the reason for his execution was the fact that he had committed the murders. In the Fifth Circuit's view, Ford required mere awareness of the State's reason rather than a rational understanding of it.

The Eighth Amendment forbids executing the insane because doing so offends human decency in that it serves neither the goal of retribution or deterrence. "The potential for a prisoner's recognition of the severity of the offense and the objective of community vindication are called into question, however, if the prisoner's mental state is so distorted by a mental illness that his awareness of the crime and punishment has little or no relation to the understanding of those concepts shared by the community as a whole." This is what the Court in Ford was referring to when it held that an inmate who lacks a rational understanding of the reason for his execution. A death-row inmate who is "so callous as to be unrepentant, so self-centered and devoid of compassion as to lack all sense of guilt, so adept at transferring blame to others as to be considered, at least in the colloquial sense, to be out of touch with reality" may still have a "rational understanding" of the reason for his execution. Panetti's claim was that, by virtue of his mental illness, his psychotic disorder, he lacked such a "rational understanding". Both the Texas courts' procedural missteps and the Fifth Circuit's substantive definition of incompetence precluded consideration of this contention.

Dissenting opinion[edit]

Justice Thomas dissented from all three of the Court's legal conclusions – that Panetti's Ford claim was not second or successive, that the Texas courts did not afford Panetti the procedural protections required by Ford, and that the Fifth Circuit did not apply the correct substantive standard under Ford.

See also[edit]

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 551
• List of criminal competencies
• List of United States Supreme Court cases

External links[edit]

• Counsel for Panetti - Texas Defender Service
• Written opinion
• Question presented
• Supplemental briefing order
• Transcript of oral argument
• On the Docket, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University
• Merits brief of petitioner
• Amicus brief of the American Bar Association
• Brief of the State of Texas as respondent
• Amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
• "Victims Await Final Verdict" by Ingrid Norton Background on lead-up to Supreme Court case. Originally published 4/17/07 in The Daily Texan

Categories:

• Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law
• United States Supreme Court cases
• 2007 in United States case law
• Capital punishment in Texas

*Faking insanity \

Panetti Case Highlights Lack of Sanity Standard | The Texas ...

www.texastribune.org/.../panetti-case-highlights-lack-...

The Texas Tribune

Nov 26, 2014 - The fact that Scott Panetti is facing lethal injection on Dec. ... The court tried to clarify the definition in 2007 through the case of Scott Panetti, a schizophrenicinmate in Texas who ... Prosecutors claim that Panetti is faking it. ... Justice LewisPowell Jr. added in a concurrence, “I would hold that the Eighth ... as a series of inmates widely believed to be severely schizophrenic and delusional were put to death, including Arkansas inmate Charles Singleton, who insisted his victim was still alive, and Florida inmate Thomas Provenzano, who claimed he was Jesus Christ.

The Supreme Court decided in 2002 to ban the death penalty for the “mentally retarded” — the more current term is “intellectually disabled” — and then in 2005 for those who committed their crimes before the age of 18. In both cases, the court cited the idea of “evolving standards of decency,” and decided that these defendants were less culpable for their crimes.

Mental health experts and defense lawyers assumed that the next group of defendants lined up to take advantage of these “evolving standards” would be those diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.

The problem was finding a clear way to define mental illness. The American Bar Association partnered with the American Psychological Association on a task force, which determined that it would be more difficult to ban the death penalty for the mentally ill, since psychotic disorders do not offer the same thresholds as intellectual disability or youth. There’s no number, like an IQ or an age, that courts can use to separate the insane from the healthy...

prosecutors have explicitly argued he might be feigning mental illness. Defending himself at trial in 1994, Panetti flipped back and forth between incoherent ramblings (“The ominous auras, acts of law and reference with conflicts, with truth, truth that’s overly blatant, acceptance of calder(ph), unknowingly for convenience not danger not”) and moments of clarity. "I had problems with certain jurors that I couldn't think clearly enough to ask them a certain question and I declined to ask those questions,” he told the judge after jury selection, asking for a delay before the start of the trial. “I'm not looking for a long delay, but I'm going to definitely need a couple of days to get my medicine."

We're Going to Execute a Man Who Subpoenaed Jesus While

www.motherjones.com/.../supreme-court-texas-execution-...

Mother Jones

Oct 15, 2014 - A Supreme Court decision in Scott Panetti's case should've made it harder to kill delusional ... Panetti was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, delusions, .... by fears that murderers would fake mental illness to escape execution. ... more loosely by Justice Louis Powell, the swing vote in Ford's favor.

[PDF]Petitioner's Brief - Death Penalty Information Center

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Petitioner's...

Death Penalty Information Center

Petitioner Scott Louis Panetti was convicted of capital murder for killing his .... times in numerous institutions for schizophrenia, schizoaf- fective disorder ..... Scott was notfaking a ..... concluded that Mr. Panetti was not feigning symptoms of.

Texas execution of Scott Panetti: Why a schizophrenic man ...

www.slate.com/.../texas_execution_of_scott_panetti_why_a_schizop...

Slate

Nov 19, 2014 - Listen to Dahlia Lithwick talk with Scott Panetti's lawyer about the case in ... At no point is there any suggestion that he is malingering or faking ...

and Updates (as of 12/22/96) - Southern Methodist University

people.smu.edu/rhalperi/updates.html?tag...

Southern Methodist University

But what about Scott Panetti - a guy who has a mental illness so severe that he had been ... The state's lawyers maintain Panetti is faking his symptoms. ... He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and hospitalized 15 times over the next 14 ... that fact that there's a bloody fingerprint makes the case much stronger, Lewis said.

[PDF]C - Saint Louis University

www.slu.edu/.../law/.../LJ53-2_Seeds_Article.pdf

Saint Louis University

by C SEEDS - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles

brief submitted in support of Scott Panetti by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. See Brief ...... narrow enough to prevent feigning of insanity. ..... for the patient”); Robert Cancro & Heinz E. Lehmann, Schizophrenia: Clinical Features, in 1 ..... district court rejected the argument that it would be nearly impossible to fake.

[PDF]The Afterlife of Ford and Panetti: Execution Competence ...

scholarship.law.cornell.edu/.../viewcontent.cgi...

Legal Information Institute

by CW Seeds - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles

Jan 1, 2009 - HeinOnline -- 53 St. Louis U. L.J. 309 2008-2009 .... brief submitted in support of Scott Panetti by the National Alliance on ...... narrow enough to preventfeigning of insanity. ..... HUMAN SERVS., SCHIZOPHRENIA 3 (NIH Publication No. ...... rejected the argument that it would be nearly impossible to fake.

Document - USA: Another Texas injustice: The case of ...

www.amnesty.org/en/.../amr510472004en.html

Amnesty International

There is no doubt that Kelsey Patterson shot Louis Oates and Dorothy Harris, and .... In another recent case, Scott Panetti received a 60-day stay of execution shortly .... Kelsey Patterson was trying to feign mental health rather than mental illness. ... from Dr Cox that it was possible to “fake” the symptoms of schizophrenia.

*Sources

Texas' Perry under pressure in Scott Panetti case | MSNBC

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow.../texas-perry-under-pressure-scott-pan...

6 days ago - At trial, Panetti represented himself, dressed like a cowboy, and subpoenaed John F. Kennedy. The Atlantic ... The Rachel Maddow Show.

Rick Perry news, video and community from msnbc

www.msnbc.com/topics/rick-perry

Kathryn Kase, an attorney for death row prisoner Scott Panetti, talks with Rachel Maddow about the legal scramble to stay Panetti's execution while the case is ...

Perry pressured ahead of Texas execution of mentally ill man

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/.../perry-pressed-to-spare-mentally-ill-...

6 days ago - Rachel Maddow reports on the case of Scott Panetti, a manifestly mentally ill man scheduled for execution in Texas tomorrow unless Governor ...

Conservatives request Rick Perry halt execution of 'mentally ...

www.msnbc.com/msnbc/conservatives-request-rick-perry-halts-executio...

6 days ago - During his capital murder trial three years later, Panetti admitted to the act ... for Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty, told msnbc.

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc - MSNBC.com

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Get the latest news and video from Rachel Maddow, and join Rachel Maddow's ... Scott Panetti, with the execution now stayed by a federal court so his case may ...

‎The Last Word - ‎This Week in God, 7.12.14 - ‎Friday's Mini-Report, 7.11.14

Legal scramble before Texas kills prisoner - MSNBC.com

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/.../legal-scramble-before-texas-kills-pri...

6 days ago - ... an attorney for death row prisoner Scott Panetti, talks with Rachel Maddow about the legal scramble to stay Panetti's execution while the case ...

Texas to Execute 'Floridly Psychotic' Scott Panetti Today at 6 ...

firedoglake.com/.../over-easy-texas-to-execute-floridly-psyc...

Firedoglake

5 days ago - In light of the looming execution and prior to the case making its way ...... Worth the watch, Rachel Maddow with Scott Panetti's lawyer, this is a ...

Justices Block Execution of Mentally Ill Killer - NBC News

www.nbcnews.com/.../justices-block-execution-mentally-i...

NBCNews.com

Jun 28, 2007 - Death row inmate Scott Panetti, seen here in 1999, was at the center of a Supreme Court ruling Thursday. ... The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott LouisPanetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 .... Most popular on msnbc.com ... Dateline · Morning Joe · Hardball · Ed · Maddow · The Last Word · msnbc.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow does not accept judge opinion that suspect was just pretending to be insane, and angry that since this man was obviously insane and proven so, he should not be killed

Scott Panetti - Mental Illness - the International Justice Project

www.internationaljusticeproject.org/illnessSpanetti.cfm

He was subsequently sentenced to death on September 22, 1995. Panetti has an extensive history of mental illness, including schizophrenia, manic ..... for the best but fearing the worst," said Panetti's mother, Yvonne Panetti of Sheldon, Wis.

Schizophrenic killer who addressed jury as 'Sgt. Ironhorse ...

www.mysanantonio.com/.../Schizophrenic-ki...

San Antonio Express‑News

1 day ago - Panetti's lawyers, death penalty opponents and mental health advocates ...the Hayward, Wis., native as severely mentally ill _ and deserving of mercy. ... Sonja Alvarado's parents, Amanda and Joe Alvarado's picture in her  ...

Mentally ill Wisconsin man killed after stabbing 2 deputies ...

www.twincities.com/.../wisconsin-deputies-stabbed-...

St. Paul Pioneer Press

May 2, 2014 - Mentally ill Wisconsin man killed after stabbing 2 deputies ... and killedafter stabbing two Dane County sheriff's deputies had schizophrenia ... at a town of Primrose home where he was living with his mother and stepfather.

Consequences of Non-treatment - Treatment Advocacy Center

www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org › ... › Violence

Fact sheet on consequences of non-treatment of severe mental illnesses. ... Of these, approximately 40% of the individuals with schizophrenia and 51% of those ... of children killed by parent – 15.8 percent of defendants had a history of untreated ....Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Schizophrenic. Killer. My Cousin. | Mother Jones

www.motherjones.com/.../mental-health-crisis-mac-mcclella...

Mother Jones

It's insanity to kill your father with a kitchen knife. It's also insanity to close hospitals, fire therapists, and leave families to face mental illness on their own.

Scott Louis Panetti | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of ...

murderpedia.org/male.P/p/panetti-scott.htm

He was sentenced to death in 1995 for killing his parents-in-law in 1992. He has a long history of serious mental illness, including schizophrenia. .... Wis., Panetti had a history of mental problems including schizophrenia, recording 14 hospital  ...

---