Scott Panetti v. Lorie Davis, Director
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12390
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Scott Panetti, a death-row inmate with a long history of schizophrenia, repeatedly claimed he was incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright; he previously represented himself at trial and was sentenced to death for murdering his in‑laws.
- Over many years Panetti litigated competency claims in state and federal courts; the district court held multiple evidentiary hearings and once found him competent; the Supreme Court in Panetti v. Quarterman clarified that competence for execution requires a "rational understanding" of the reasons for punishment.
- In late 2014 Texas set an execution date with little or no advance notice to Panetti or his counsel; counsel sought appointment and funding for experts and investigators under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 to develop an Article 46.05 (Texas) competency motion but the state and state courts moved quickly and denied relief as untimely or not properly filed.
- The State submitted new materials (an expert affidavit and a recorded conversation) while Panetti lacked funded experts to rebut or develop contemporaneous evidence; the federal district court denied Panetti’s motion for counsel and funding and ruled on the merits, finding he failed to make a sufficient showing of incompetence.
- The Fifth Circuit (majority) reversed: it held Texas’s process as applied rendered state procedures ineffective to protect Ford rights here, vacated the district court’s factual findings on competency as premature, and remanded with instructions to appoint counsel and authorize funds for experts and investigators for renewed proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Panetti) | Defendant's Argument (Texas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to appointed counsel and funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 for post‑conviction habeas work | Panetti argued he is financially unable to obtain counsel/expert help and § 3599 entitles him to appointed counsel and funds to make a colorable Ford claim and develop evidence | State argued Panetti’s claims were procedurally barred or meritless and prior proceedings made funding futile | Court: Reversed district court; § 3599 appointment and funding required here because state process rendered presentation ineffective and it was not plain that aid would be futile |
| Whether exhaustion should bar federal review (effectiveness of Texas Article 46.05 procedure) | Panetti argued exhaustion should be excused because, as applied, Texas’s process (late notice, truncated deadlines, denial of funding) was ineffective under Ford | State argued Panetti failed to exhaust and Texas procedures foreclose review | Court: Excused exhaustion — Texas process was ineffective as applied; federal review permitted and de novo review applies because state courts did not reach merits |
| Whether passage of time (a decade since prior competency hearing) and new evidence justify funding for new experts | Panetti argued new post‑2008 records and observations could show changed competency and experts are reasonably necessary to develop non‑supplemental evidence | State (and dissent) argued the new evidence is not different in kind from prior exhaustive hearings, so additional experts would only supplement prior evidence and district court did not abuse discretion in denying funds | Court: Passage of time plus state’s adversarial gathering of new evidence made appointment reasonably necessary; district court abused discretion denying funding |
| Effect of state filings (Penn affidavit, recorded conversation) on due process and district court factfinding | Panetti argued the State’s untimely adversarial accumulation and filing of evidence while he lacked funded experts deprived him of meaningful opportunity to rebut, tainting the record | State argued TCCA and district court did not rely on those submissions and thus no due‑process violation; district court had discretion to weigh record | Court: State’s conduct and the truncated process skewed the proceedings; district court’s factual findings on competency vacated as premature and must be redetermined after appointment and funding |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of the insane; due‑process protections require hearing once a substantial threshold showing of insanity is made)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (competency to be executed requires a prisoner’s "rational understanding" of the State’s reasons for execution)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment limits on capital punishment relevant background jurisprudence)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (prohibiting execution of intellectually disabled persons; cited as related Eighth Amendment precedent)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (States may require counsel for defendants who are competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves)
- McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) (statutory right to appointed counsel for indigent state prisoners on federal habeas review)
- Christeson v. Roper, 135 S. Ct. 891 (2015) (appointment of counsel may be denied only when relief is indisputably foreclosed)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (state legislative judgments are persuasive evidence of contemporary values; cited regarding legislative correction of procedural defects in Texas)