## Facts

- Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of first-degree murder in Florida and sentenced to death in 1974.
- Ford was not alleged to be incompetent at the time of the offense, trial, or sentencing.
- While on death row, Ford developed severe psychosis with persistent delusions; an independent psychiatrist opined he was not competent to be executed.
- Under Florida’s competency statute, the Governor appointed three psychiatrists to examine Ford; their joint interview lasted about 30 minutes, with multiple officials present, and counsel was barred from adversarial participation.
- The psychiatrists reported to the Governor, who had final, unreviewable authority; despite differing diagnoses, they concluded Ford was competent under Florida’s standard.
- Defense counsel sought to submit additional psychiatric materials; the Governor’s office did not confirm whether it would consider them, and the Governor signed a death warrant without explanation.
- State courts declined to hold a new competency hearing; federal habeas relief was denied without an evidentiary hearing, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing a prisoner who is insane.
2. Whether Florida’s procedures for determining competency to be executed satisfy due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids execution of a prisoner who is insane.
- The Court held that Florida’s competency procedures violated due process and that Ford was entitled to a judicial evidentiary hearing on competency once insanity was seriously put in dispute.
- Justice Powell concurred in part and in the judgment and supplied the controlling substantive standard for competency to be executed.

## Legal Principles

- The Eighth Amendment bars execution of a prisoner who is incompetent for execution; at minimum, the State may not execute a person who is unaware of the punishment and why it is being imposed.
- When a condemned prisoner makes a substantial threshold showing of insanity, due process requires a fair procedure to determine competency before execution.
- A constitutionally adequate procedure must provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including the ability to present evidence and contest the State’s psychiatric evidence before a neutral factfinder.
- Executive-only decisionmaking that is effectively unreviewable, coupled with restrictions that prevent adversarial testing of psychiatric conclusions, does not satisfy due process where competency is contested.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized a constitutional bar on executing prisoners who lack awareness of their impending execution and its reason, and required states to provide a meaningful, reliable hearing with an opportunity to present and challenge evidence when competency to be executed is substantially questioned.


Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)