Sept. 16 TEXAS: Is Scott Panetti Sane Enough to Die? According to Scott Panetti, the state of Texas wants him dead in order to stop him from "the gospel of the Lord King." That, of course, is not the documented reason that the state intends to execute Panetti, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the Sept. 8, 1992, murder of his in-laws, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, at their house in Fredericksburg. But whether Panetti, a diagnosed schizophrenic, understands that the Alvarado slaying is the reason he is facing death is the question before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who is tasked with determining whether Panetti is competent to be executed. Prior to 1992, Panetti had been hospitalized at least 11 times; in 1986, believing that demons were in possession of his house and furniture, he buried his furniture in the back yard and slashed at his walls with a knife in an attempt at exorcism. Panetti was released from his last hospitalization just two months before killing the Alvarados. When he turned himself in to police the afternoon of the murders, he told authorities that "Sarge" - later identified as a recurring auditory hallucination - was responsible for the slayings. Panetti had taken antipsychotic drugs intermittently prior to the murders, but was heavily medicated during a competency hearing to determine whether he was capable of understanding his situation and aiding lawyers in his defense; in September 1994, a jury determined that he was competent to stand trial. By the time the trial began in the fall of 1995, Panetti had stopped taking his medication; still, Kerr Co. District Judge Stephen Ables did not intervene when Panetti decided to forgo representation by an attorney and to defend himself. During the trial Panetti dressed in a purple cowboy outfit, filed numerous rambling legal motions, and sought to subpoena nearly 200 witnesses - including Jesus Christ, John F. Kennedy, and Anne Bancroft. During two days of testimony last week, psychiatrists and forensic psychologists took the stand to offer their opinion on Panetti's state of mind. To hear the state and its experts (who were paid at least $10,000 for their assessments) tell it, Panetti is perfectly competent to face lethal injection inside Texas' death chamber. Mental illness does not preclude competency, argued Assistant Attorney General Tina Dettmer, noting numerous times that Panetti was already deemed competent back in 1994. Just because Panetti is delusional, Dettmer said, does not mean that he isn't capable of understanding why the state intends to kill him. Defense attorney Keith Hampton countered that the law requires that Panetti understand, both factually and rationally, why he is being put to death in order for him to be considered competent to die - an understanding, he says, that Panetti clearly does not have. To illustrate his argument, Hampton called four doctors to the stand (one received $1,000 for the consultation; three took on the task pro bono), to assess Panetti's mental state. According to Mary Alice Conroy, a board certified forensic psychologist, Panetti is aware that he is on death row, but doesn't understand the connection between the Alvarado murders and his current status. Instead, she said, Panetti believes he is slated for execution as "part of spiritual warfare" and that any other explanation is a "sham." His "flight of thought" is marked by long bouts of conversation featuring "loose association between topics," which is hard to fake, she noted in response to a state assertion that Panetti may simply be a malingerer. At one point during their conversation, Conroy said, Panetti went from talking about shaving equipment to talking about Darwinism and creationism, naval supplies, the Titanic and Noah's ark, and then into a discussion about the governor of Malta and New York judges. That type of thought chain, she said, "would be almost impossible to fake." Conroy's assessments were shared by two other psychologists, Susannah Rosin and Mark Cunningham, and by psychiatrist Seth Silverman. "He is very tangential," Silverman said, and "very pressured; he can't keep his thoughts together." Silverman said that he asked Panetti numerous times about the Alvarado killing but that Panetti was insistent that Sarge had killed them. "He takes no responsibility," Silverman said. Panetti does not understand the connection between the murders and his impending execution: "He doesn't believe that is the reason he is to be killed," Silverman said. "He believes [it is] because he preaches the word of the gospel; he's very insistent about that." After reviewing 11 years' worth of Panetti's psychiatric, military, and Veterans Administration hospital records, his competency hearing and trial transcripts, and numerous additional affidavits and other documentary items, Silverman, Rosin, and Cunningham each opined that Panetti is not competent to face execution. Conversely, after spending one hour interviewing Panetti, state-retained psychologist George Parker and psychiatrist Mary Anderson each said that while they weren't able to determine, conclusively, whether Panetti is competent, he is likely able to understand his circumstances and is therefore likely eligible for execution. Parker told the court that he found it "hard to believe" that a person, who at times could be reasonable, simply wouldn't understand his circumstance. "So I don't understand why he wouldn't understand what the state is up to here and what this is all about," he said. Parker and Anderson wrote in a report to the court that Panetti "is able to understand direct questions ... if he were willing to do so," they wrote, but that he "deliberately and persistently chose to control and manipulate our interview." For example, they wrote, when asked if he had been convicted of capital murder, Panetti wouldn't answer and instead told them that he has "lost the ability to choose," Panetti told them. "I do not know right from wrong. But the Lord does. And so I follow the Lord." Thus, the doctors concluded that "[a]lthough Mr. Panetti chooses not to discuss the reason that he is to be executed, he has the ability to understand the reason he is to be executed." Sparks' ruling is expected later this week. If Sparks rules in favor of Panetti, Hampton said, it would be the first time that a Texas death row inmate has been determined to be incompetent to face execution. (source: Austin Chronicle) ****************** Texas Serial Killer To Appear On Montel Williams Show A notorious Texas serial killer who has ties to San Antonio, speaks out on national television, from death row. "To me it's been a lifetime of slitting someone's throat, banging someone in the head, squeezing their neck till they can't breathe. It's no more than peeling an orange or a tomato," said Tommy Lynn Sells. Sells will appear on the Montel Williams show Thursday on News 4 WOAI. He's on death row for the murder of Kaylene Harris of Del Rio. "I'm a sick person. I'm not proud of that, but that's who I am," said Sells. He's admitted to some 50 murders, including the killing of Mary Bea Perez, who disappeared during Fiesta in 1999. (source: VOAI News) ************************ Wrongfully convicted face new obstacle----DA must certify 'actual innocence' of Sutton, others for compensation from incarceration COMPENSATION A bill adopted in 2001 allows people who were wrongfully convicted to collect $25,000 per year of incarceration if they: Served all or part of their sentence Received a pardon of innocence or relief from a court, based on their innocence Can document the amount of time served In 2003, a new provision, which the bill's author calls unfair, added this requirement: A letter certifying the claimant's actual innocence from the district attorney A law providing compensation for people who were wrongly imprisoned may be of no help to Houston's Josiah Sutton and other former inmates because of a change that was slipped into it last year. The new provision, added unbeknown to the existing law's author, requires that people seeking state reparations get a letter from the district attorney whose office prosecuted them, certifying their "actual innocence." Sutton is eligible for more than $100,000 for the 4 1/2 years he spent in prison for a 1998 rape before he was pardoned. But the new clause could make it impossible for him to collect. Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said Wednesday he will not send the necessary letter. "If I knew he was innocent, I would. But I don't know that now," Rosenthal said, discounting the pardon Sutton received in May. "If you give me some good reason to believe (the victim) was mistaken, I will probably send the letter." Sutton could not be reached for comment. Further complicating Sutton's efforts, according to lawmakers and his lawyer, is the fact that the state's fund for such compensation is depleted for now. "Even if he secures all the paperwork, which itself is unlikely, it might be 18 months before he gets the money," said David Dow of the Houston Innocence Network, who represents Sutton. Officials with the state comptroller's office, which administers the fund, could not say Wednesday how much money is available. One of the sponsors of the 2001 legislation that allows exonerated inmates to collect $25,000 per year of incarceration is outraged at the new requirement. Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, said he was never consulted about the new condition, which was included in the voluminous comptroller's fiscal matters bill that is approved every session. "Someone has slipped into state law in the dark of night a provision that says even if you have a pardon you have to have a letter from the district attorney saying you are actually innocent," Ellis said. "It's ridiculous." Associate Deputy Comptroller Jesse Ancira said the provision was meant to limit the comptroller's role in determining who should receive compensation. "The change came about simply because of a discussion at the agency about moving the responsibility to an agency that would be better suited to make that decision, not an effort to deny anyone," he said. "We talked about using the attorney general or Texas Department of Criminal Justice anywhere but here." Ellis, however, said the law as it was written in 2001 was clear about who should receive money and needed no adjustment. "This is a fundamental change to the law that makes it harder for people to get what is owed to them," he said. "I want to see it changed." Ancira said the comptroller's office is willing to revisit the law in the next session. Sutton has faced obstacles at every stage of his effort to clear his name. Now 22, he was convicted of a 1998 rape primarily on DNA evidence from the Houston Police Department's crime lab. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison at age 17. His case received new scrutiny last year amid questions about work done by the DNA lab, which was shut down in December 2002. In March 2003, new DNA tests excluded Sutton as a suspect in the assault. He was released but had difficulty obtaining a pardon and adjusting to life outside prison. It took 11 months for the state Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider Sutton's case because of a paperwork dispute. Although Gov. Rick Perry pardoned him in May on the basis of innocence, his conviction has not been erased from his record. "I continue to be surprised by how much easier it is to convict someone who is innocent than to correct a wrongful conviction," Dow said. "It should be simple to correct these things. It shouldn't be a bureaucratic nightmare." Ellis said he plans to propose adjustments to the compensation law in next year's legislative session, including increasing the amount of money exonerated people can receive and allowing them to sue and seek reparations simultaneously. He also wants to eliminate the letter requirement. Currently, people who were wrongfully convicted can receive $25,000 for each year they were in prison, up to a total of $500,000. "It takes $40,000 a year to incarcerate someone," Ellis said. "We should be giving them at least that." State law prohibits applicants for state money from filing lawsuits if they seek compensation. Ellis said he would like to allow people to receive state funds while a lawsuit is pending and repay the state if they win. (source: Houston Chronicle) USA: Cornell historian says it's time to stop executing minors in the U.S. On Oct. 13 the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in Roper v. Simmons, a case that could determine the future of the juvenile death penalty in America. Joan Jacobs Brumberg, Cornell professor of history, human development and gender studies, with expertise on the history of American childhood, says the court must -- once and for all -- halt the practice of executing minors. "America cannot legitimately hold itself up as a beacon of human rights around the world as long as we continue to execute people for crimes committed as juveniles," she explained. Brumberg, the author of Kansas Charley: The Boy Murderer (Penguin Books, 2004), argued that "kids who kill are not a new phenomenon. While it was appropriate to conflate children with adults a century ago, today it is not." Brumberg explained that adolescents should not be held to the same standard of legal culpability as adults. "A growing body of scientific evidence gathered in the last 15 years shows that juveniles, much like the mentally retarded, lack the mental capacity to make informed decisions," she said. Kansas Charley is a historical and psycho-social review of the case of Charley Miller, born in 1874 and orphaned by the age of 6. He moved from foster home to foster home, suffered both mental and physical abuse, and then finally went off on his own to tramp penniless across the country. In September 1890, at the age of 15, while stowing away on a Union Pacific freight train, he met two financially solvent boys -- Waldo Emerson and Ross Fishbaugh -- who had been tramping for adventure. Miller shot them both in the head and robbed them while they were sleeping. The murder made national news. Miller successfully fled the murder scene and investigators had few clues, but he was so overwrought with guilt that he turned himself in and confessed to the crime. After a national debate about his fate and numerous court appeals, Miller was hanged in 1892 in Cheyenne, Wyo. -- at the age of 17. The case before the Supreme Court, Roper v. Simmons, has some elements that are similar to Charley Miller's. Christopher Simmons, like Miller, was repeatedly beaten and abused as a child, and his crime was horrific. At the age of 17, he was charged with the murder of Shirley Crook, whose body was found in the Meramec River in Missouri on Sept. 9, 1993. Crook had been bound with cable, straps and duct tape and tossed alive into the river, where she drowned. The lower Missouri courts found Simmons guilty and sentenced him to death. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Missouri denied the death penalty for Simmons, explaining that execution would violate his 8th and 14th Amendment rights. Roper v. Simmons will test Stanford v. Kentucky, the 1989 decision that allowed execution of 16- and 17-year-olds. Fifteen years after Stanford v. Kentucky, the world has changed, explained Brumberg, pointing out that most other countries reject the idea of executing people for crimes they committed as minors. In the Simmons case, 48 nations, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and Canada, have submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting that executing someone under age 18 violates human rights norms and the minimal standards set by the United Nations. "The juvenile death penalty violates international standards of decency even among autocratic regimes like Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, Iran and the Congo," she said. In the afterword of Kansas Charley, Brumberg addresses the scientific and medical causes for violent behavior, including the possibility that there may be a biological cause. However, she is quick to say that any biological propensity to violence is probably activated by environmental stressors, such as family dysfunction, poverty and abuse. Beyond the science, Brumberg points to modern death-row statistics as well. Between 1973 and 2002, the United States executed more minors than all the other countries in the world combined. She said: "In the eyes of the international community, the United States now stands out for its backwardness rather than its humanity. After a century of struggling with this issue, it is time for Americans to outlaw this barbaric practice. History shows that we pick on boys with the least resources and that these cases most often become political footballs." (source: Cornell Chronicle) ARKANSAS----impending volunteer execution Killer Rips Clemency Petition An application for clemency has been filed on behalf of condemned killer Rickey Dale Newman, but Newman says he doesn't want it. The application was filed Sept. 10 by Betsey Wright of Rogers. She is Newman's spiritual adviser. The state Post Prison Transfer Board is scheduled to consider the application today, said Rhonda Sharp, a spokesperson for the Department of Community Punishment. Wright states in the application that she is seeking executive clemency for Newman, who is scheduled to be executed on Sept. 28 for the February 2001 murder of Marie Cholette. Newman on Tuesday told the Times Record that he opposes any form of intervention, including clemency. "She has no right to do this. Nothing has changed," he said. Newman also has sent a statement to the Post Prison Transfer Board opposing the request. The two-sentence statement, written in all capital letters, states: "I do not want executive clemency. I want to be put to death." Newman, who is representing himself, said no one has the right to apply for clemency for him. "I want my execution on September 28-04, so I don't want to file for clemency now or ever, and no one can do it for me," he wrote to the board. Wright said that is exactly why someone should seek clemency for Newman. "There are too many unanswered questions about this conviction. I don't think it is a sure thing at all, and I don't think he should be executed as long as there are this many questions outstanding," she said. "One of the major questions that are outstanding is that it is possible the person who committed this crime is still at large. Something drastic has to happen to get law enforcement back to looking for physical evidence to identify the murderer, whether it is Rickey or somebody else," Wright said. Wright said in her application that a miscarriage of justice occurred in the way Newman's June 2002 trial was handled because Newman did not allow his court-appointed attorney to provide a proper defense. "Since he doesn't have a lawyer to file for him, I decided that I had to try to file. I don't know if they will hear it, but I had to try and file for clemency," she said. Wright is seeking to have Newman's death sentence commuted. "I wish to correct an injustice that may have occurred during the trial," Wright states in her request. Wright said she knows Newman opposes her position, but felt she had to move forward with the request. "His feelings matter a lot to me. I'm very close to Rickey. I don't believe he should be executed and he does. That's been a difference between us since we first became friends," Wright said. Crawford County Prosecutor Marc McCune said he opposes any request for clemency. "For what he did and how he committed his crime, he definitely needs to be put to death for this," he said. McCune also disagreed with Wright's contention that there is no evidence linking Newman to Cholette's murder. "I'm positive. I wouldn't have tried the case if I wasn't positive that he did the crime. I'm positive he did it," McCune said. "There's no doubt in my mind. He has a history of violence. It is a pattern he has shown in the past. He exploded in the courtroom. . It was consistent with what he did." McCune also said he isn't surprised the clemency request had been made. "I would hope they (the board) would look at the evidence. This was tried with all the evidence presented before a Crawford County jury and they need to take all that into consideration. . They need to oppose the clemency request," McCune said. Cholette's daughter, Danielle Monske, commented on Wright's application: "That makes me angry considering the fact that it was so brutal. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. No one deserves to die like that. To hear something like (that the clemency application was filed) that makes me very angry." Newman says he killed Cholette, who was a transient, because she lied about being a member of a railroad gang. Cholette's mutilated body was found in a transient camp near Van Buren's Lee Creek Park on Feb. 15, 2001. Newman admitted from the day he was arrested that he had murdered Cholette. He encouraged the jury to sentence him to death. (source: The Times Record)
