The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ordered a new lawyer and additional mental health expert funding for Scott Panetti, a schizophrenic Texas death row inmate who represented himself at trial wearing a cowboy costume and called Jesus Christ as a witness.
Panetti has a long history of schizophrenia and institutionalization and was charged with capital murder for killing his wife's parents in front of his wife and his 3-year-old daughter. He insisted on representing himself in a bizarre 1995 trial in Kerrville that resulted in his conviction and death sentence.
Panetti obtained pro bono lawyers on appeal who have repeatedly argued that he is too incompetent to be executed. However, Texas courts have repeatedly found that Panetti understands the reasons for his execution and is therefore competent.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to Panetti's case in 2007 and ruled in favor of his attorneys' arguments that a defendant must have a "rational understanding" of why he is being executed, and not simply be aware of the state's reasons for carrying out the execution.
But a Texas federal court later found that Panetti had such an understanding and denied his request for additional funding for a new lawyer and for a mental health expert to prove his incompetence rulings he appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
In a June 11 decision in Panetti v. Davis, Fifth Circuit Senior Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote that the district court should have appointed Panetti another lawyer and a mental health expert, and vacated its ruling that Panetti is competent to be executed. However, Higginbotham declined to rule on whether Panetti is competent, remanding that question back to the district court for "another chapter in this judicial plunge into the dark forest of insanity and death directed by the flickering and inevitably elusive guides."
"We need not and do not treat the merits of Panetti's claim that he is incompetent to be executed that is for the district court after Panetti has been afforded the opportunity to develop his position," Higginbotham wrote, noting that the Panetti's case is taking death penalty competency evaluations into "uncharted waters."
"This opinion does not undertake to resolve these uncertainties; it rather insists that their resolution proceed with fully armed counsel on both sides the essence of due process," he wrote.
Judge Priscilla Owen dissented to the majority opinion, noting that while she agreed Panetti is entitled to appointed counsel at every step of his ongoing proceedings, the failure to appoint compensated counsel is not a dispositive issue and did not warrant a stay of execution.