## Facts

- Scott Louis Panetti, a Texas death-row prisoner, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing his parents-in-law.
- Panetti had a long history of serious mental illness. A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation described conditions including fragmented personality, delusions, and hallucinations; evidence included prior treatment for extreme psychosis.
- Despite the mental-health history, Panetti was found competent to stand trial and allowed to represent himself, with standby counsel; his conduct was described as reflecting severe mental disturbance.
- After Panetti exhausted state remedies and previously sought federal habeas relief on other grounds, Texas later set an execution date.
- Once the execution became imminent, Panetti sought a determination in Texas state court that he was incompetent to be executed under *Ford v. Wainwright*.
- The state court appointed two mental-health experts to evaluate him; they concluded he was competent to be executed.
- Panetti objected to the experts’ reports and sought to present additional evidence and argument, but the state court found him competent based on the two reports and closed the case without addressing his proffered evidence and pending motions.
- Panetti returned to federal court with a federal habeas petition raising the *Ford* incompetency-to-be-executed claim. The federal district court stayed the execution to allow state consideration of competency.
- The federal district court later held the state proceedings constitutionally inadequate and held its own evidentiary hearing with testimony from multiple experts for both sides. The evidence indicated Panetti suffered from severe delusions and did not truly understand the reason for his execution.
- Applying a narrow test focused on whether Panetti was aware he would be executed and aware of the State’s stated reason, the federal district court denied relief, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Panetti’s *Ford* incompetency-to-be-executed claim, brought after the claim became ripe, was barred as a “second or successive” habeas application under AEDPA because he had filed a prior federal habeas petition.
2. Whether Texas provided constitutionally sufficient procedures for deciding competency to be executed when it relied on two court-appointed reports and ended the case without allowing Panetti a fair chance to present and answer evidence.
3. Whether the Eighth Amendment permits execution when a prisoner can state the State’s asserted reason for execution but, because of severe delusions, lacks a rational understanding of that reason.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held Panetti’s *Ford* claim was not barred as “second or successive” because incompetency-to-be-executed claims commonly become ripe only when an execution is scheduled and the prisoner’s present mental state is at issue.
- The Court held the Fifth Circuit applied an overly restrictive standard by treating bare factual awareness as enough; *Ford* requires a broader inquiry when mental illness may prevent a rational understanding of the State’s reason for execution.
- The Court concluded the state process, as applied, did not provide the type of fair competency determination contemplated by *Ford* once a substantial showing of incompetency is made, and the lower courts needed to apply the correct standard on an adequate record.
- The Court did not itself decide whether Panetti was competent to be executed; it required further proceedings using the proper legal standard.

## Legal Principles

- A *Ford* incompetency-to-be-executed claim raised when it first becomes ripe is not automatically treated as a barred “second or successive” habeas application under AEDPA.
- Once a condemned prisoner makes a substantial threshold showing of incompetency to be executed, due process under *Ford* requires a fair procedure before a neutral decisionmaker, including a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and respond to the State’s proof.
- The Eighth Amendment’s bar on executing the “insane,” as applied in *Ford*, is not satisfied by mere awareness of the execution and the State’s asserted reason; courts must consider whether severe mental illness prevents a rational understanding of why the State seeks the execution.

## Conclusion

*Panetti v. Quarterman* held that a *Ford* claim brought when competency-to-be-executed becomes a live issue is not barred as successive under AEDPA, that the Constitution requires a fair competency process once the prisoner makes a substantial showing, and that the Eighth Amendment inquiry must address rational understanding rather than simple factual awareness.


Panetti v. Quarterman, 552 U.S. 930, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007)