Printer Friendly Version
Scott Panetti
Texas
Mental Illness
Schizophrenia
Execution Date: On 26 March 2008 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas finds Scott Panetti competent to be executed. No execution date has yet been set.
Case Summary
Letters Asking for Clemency
Case Summary
 Scott Panetti was tried for the capital murder of Joe Alvarado and Amanda Alvarado, his parents-in-law on September 8, 1992 in Gillespie County, Texas. He was subsequently sentenced to death on September 22, 1995. Panetti has an extensive history of mental illness, including schizophrenia, manic depression, auditory hallucinations and paranoia. Panetti was hospitalized, both voluntarily and involuntarily for mental illness fourteen times in six different hospitals before his arrest for capital murder in 1992. Following his conviction, Panetti’s former wife, and daughter of the victims, Sonja Alvarado, filed a petition stating that Panetti never should have been tried for the crimes as he was suffering from paranoid delusions at the time of the killings.
Facts of the Case:
In August 1992, Panetti and Sonja Alvarado, separated because of his drinking and abusive behaviour. Following their separation, Sonja Alvarado obtained a restraining order against her husband, took their three-year-old daughter and moved in with her parents, Amanda and Joe Alvarado.
Three months later, on the morning of 8 September 1992, Panetti sawed off the barrel of his shotgun, shaved his head, dressed in army fatigues and went to the residence of his parents-in-law. Panetti shot open the door, entered the house and proceeded to shoot his wife’s parents at close range. He then took Sonja Alvarado and their daughter to his bunkhouse. Police later surrounded the bunkhouse, at which point Panetti changed into a suit and surrendered. Panetti later stated who his parents-in-law made ‘Sarge’, one of Panetti’s personalities, come out and it was he that killed them. Panetti stated that ‘Sarge’ controlled him and that because of divine intervention his parents-in-law did not suffer.
Competency Hearing:
Two competency trials were held in the case. The first resulted in a hung jury while the second found him competent. The second finding was despite testimony that Panetti had four or five personalities, was mentally ill and schizophrenic, would become delusional and unresponsive under stress, and was unable to consult with counsel with a degree of rational understanding or have a coherent understanding of the proceedings.
After the results of the second competency hearing, Panetti requested that he be allowed to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. Panetti’s attorneys objected, arguing that he was not competent to stand trial, did not understand the process and could not represent himself. The State also objected to Panetti’s attorneys withdrawing from the case. The judge, however, granted Panetti’s request and ordered counsel to withdraw.
Trial
The case went to trial in September 1995 with Panetti representing himself.
Panetti dressed in cowboy style for the duration of the trial. He wore a cowboy style hat, which hung from a string over his back, cowboy style shirts with bandanas and constantly used old western terminology such as “runaway mule” and “bronc steer’. He asked irrational questions, frequently cited numerous biblical passages and engaged in incoherent and confused streams of consciousness.
During the trial, two witnesses who had treated Panetti observed the proceedings: Dr. Seale who had treated Panetti at Starlight Village since 1986 and Dr. Selck who also treated him at Starlight Village.
Dr. Seale observed that Panetti’s actions were part of his delusions and concluded that he was incompetent to stand trial let alone represent himself. Dr. Seale further opined that it was immoral to let Panetti represent himself and that the trial judge should have stopped the trial and ordered an evaluation. Dr. Seale stated: “My God. How in the world can our legal system allow an insane man to defend himself? How can this be just?”
Dr. Selck believed Panetti’s mental illness prevented him from representing himself appropriately and considered that Panetti's insane ramblings and actions adversely affected the jury frequently causing shock and disgust. Dr. Selck's observations also led him to conclude, in agreement with Dr. Seale, that Panetti was incompetent at trial.
As a result of Panetti’s mental illness, standby counsel observed the trial to be “a judicial farce and mockery of representation” adding that Panetti had wanted to subpoena Jesus Christ, JFK, actors, actresses, and people who had died. He concluded that “it should never have been allowed to happen”. An attorney, called by Panetti as a witness, shared these observations, stating: “The courtroom had the atmosphere of a circus. The judge just seemed to let Scott run free with his irrational questions and courtroom antics.”
Panetti’s family also shared these concerns. His father recalled in an affidavit that his son’s behaviour at the trial had been “very bizarre”: “I wanted to tell the judge to stop the trial because my son was sick and incompetent”. Panetti’s sister believes “that justice broke down in [her] brother’s trial”, adding “It was not fair to let a mentally ill man be his own attorney when he did not know what he was doing. I am sorry to say that the trial was a farce. It was a circus-like atmosphere. I never expected justice to allow this.”
The atmosphere within the court was heightened by the presence of Texas Rangers on either side of Panetti, who followed him wherever he moved within the courtroom. Additionally, a number of Kerr County Sheriff’s deputies, the Sheriff and Texas Rangers were also present in the courtroom. The increased security may have had a negative impact on the jury.
After trial, two jurors stated that Panetti probably would not have received the death penalty had the case been handled differently. A further two jurors stated that if Panetti had been represented by an attorney, he would not have received the death penalty. One of them said that the jurors had voted for death out of their fear of his irrational behaviour at the trial.
Three years after Scott Panetti's trial, Sonja Alvarado, Panetti's former wife and the daughter of the victims, filed a petition saying that Panetti never should have been tried for the crimes, as he was suffering from paranoid delusions at the time of the killings. She described the trial as a “circus” and “a big joke” and in a 1999 affidavit she said: “I know now that Scott is mentally ill and should not be put to death”.
Timeline:
1981
Hospitalized at the Kerville State Hospital
Symptoms: Hostile, defensive, suspicious, grandiose, paranoid, impaired co-ordination
Diagnosis: Alcohol Dependence
April, 1986
Admitted to Starlight Village (for alcohol dependency)
Symptoms/behaviour: Psychotic, delusional, active hallucination, impaired attention and inco-ordination, paranoid and grandiose.
Diagnosis: Chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia, alcohol intoxication abuse, Alcohol abuse and dependence and marijuana abuse
Transferred to Kerville State Hospital for further evaluation
Diagnosis: Schizophrenia, alcohol and cannabis abuse and dependent personality disorder
Transferred to Waco Veteran’s Administrative Hospital for further evaluation
Records indicate that he was paranoid and buried some furniture because he believed the devil to be in the furniture and nailed curtains shut so neighbours couldn’t see in.
Diagnosis: Chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia, alcohol dependent and marijuana abuse.
Treated with anti-psychotic medication
July, 1986
Admitted to Tomah Veteran’s hospital
Diagnosed: Schizophrenia
Transferred to Cumberland Memorial Hospital
Diagnosed: Depression, brain dysfunction, delusions, auditory hallucinations, and homicidal ideation towards his family.
August, 1986
Transferred to Northern Pines Unified Services Center
Diagnosis: depression and homicidal ideation towards his family
He had hallucinations in which he saw the devil on the wall, so he killed the devil and then saw blood coming out of the walls, causing him to wash the walls. He washed his house to get rid of the devil, thinking it was after him.
October, 1986
Hospitalised at Starlight Village
Diagnosis: Psychotic and schizophrenia
November, 1996
Transferred to the Kerville Veterans Hospital
Diagnosis: Schizoaffective disorder
1990
Involuntarily committed to Kerville State Hospital because of homicidal behaviour, since he had threatened to kill his wife, baby, father-in-law and himself. He also believed the town of Kerville to be plotting against him.
1992
Admitted to the Kerville Veterans Hospital.
Diagnosis: Schizoaffective disorder with a possible three personalities
August, 1992
Panetti and his wife had marital difficulties and separated. Panetti’s wife moved in with her parents.
September 8, 1992
Panetti sawed off the barrel of his shotgun, shaved his head, dressed in army fatigues and went to the residence of his parents-in-law. Panetti shot open the door and entered the house and proceeded to shoot his wife’s parents. He then took his wife and child to his bunkhouse. Police surrounded the bunkhouse, at which point Panetti changed into a suit and surrendered. Panetti later stated that his parents-in-law made Sarge come out (one of Panetti’s personalities) and it was he that killed them.
Legal Developments
Most recently arguments before the courts have focussed upon whether Mr Panetti's mental illness prevents his execution under the Eight Amendment. Scott Panetti understands that the state wants to execute him for the murder of his wife's parents. However, he believes that the state's actual reason is because the state, in league with Satan, wants to kill him to keep him from preaching the Gospel. This delusion has been documented by doctors and acknowledged by both the judiciary and prosecuting authorities.
In earlier appeals a 3-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans rejected the arguments articulated on Mr Panetti's behalf finding that he was sane enough to be executed. Applying what they interpreted to be the test from the case of Ford v. Wainwright the Court held that a "rational understanding" of the punishment is not required for the state to establish that an inmate is competent to be executed. The Court found that Mr Panetti's "delusional beliefs - even those which may result in a fundamental failure to appreciate the connection between [his] crimes and his execution - do not bear on the question of whether [he] 'knows the reason for his execution' for the purposes of the 8th Amendment' because Fifth Circuit case law requires the petitioner know no more than the fact of his impending execution and the factual predicate for the execution".
An appeal was subsequently lodged in the United States Supreme Court. To read the cert petition click here.
On 7 January 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question before the Court was whether the Eight Amendment permitted the execution of an individual who has a factual awareness of the reason for his execution but who, because of mental illness, has a delusional belief as to why the state is executing him and thus does not appreciate that the execution is a direct consequence of the capital crime committed.
On 28 June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 ruling overturned the lower court's ruling on the basis that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered Mr Panetti's claim of incompetency on the merits. As a consequence the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lower courts had improperly determined that Mr Panetti was competent to be executed and correspondingly a rehearing on Mr Panetti's claim of mental incompetence was required.
As noted above, the Fifth Circuit found that Mr. Panetti had a minimal understanding of the nexus between the crime committed and his excecution. In contrast the U.S. Supreme Court Justice in their majority ruling stated that Mr Panetti was so delusional that a minimal understanding was not sufficient and that he had been denied the opportunity to fully present his case for insanity.
The Court also held that the trial court that sentenced him to death "failed to provide the procedures to which [Mr Panetti] was entitled under the Constitution," calling the procedures that the court did provide "so deficient that they cannot be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of the 'Ford rule.' "
In writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted, "gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put an awareness of a link between a crime and its punishment in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no proper purpose. It is therefore error to derive from Ford, and the substantive standard for incompetency its opinions broadly identify, a strict test for competency that treats delusional beliefs as irrelevant once the prisoner is aware the State has identified the link between his crime and the punishment to be inflicted." The Court concluded that " a prisoner's recognition of the severity of the offense and the objective of community vindication are called into question… if the prisoner's metal state is so distorted by a mental illness that his awareness of the crime and punishment has little or no relation to the understanding of those concepts shraed by a community as a whole."
With this decision, the USSC re-confirmed the analysis expressed in Justice Powell's concurring opinion in Ford v. Wainwright in 1986. Powell stated that the retributive goal of capital punishment is not met if a person fails to meaningfully appreciate the connection between his crime and punishment, and in those cases, the execution would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent called the ruling "a half-baked holding that leaves the details of the insanity standard for the district court to work out." He was joined in the minority by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
To read the Court's decision click here.
A number of amici were filed in the case, each technical in nature. In their amicus brief, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness make a cogent plea: "Scientific knowledge about schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder supports the conclusion that persons in Panetti's condition cannot rationally understand the reasons for their execution. Convinced of the reality of their delusions, they simply cannot grasp the essential truth: that their impending execution is retribution for their crimes."
To access briefs filed in the Supreme Court including those of Amici Curiae, click here.
Recent Developments
On 15 August 2007, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for the Western District of Texas "for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court."
An evidentiary hearing on Panetti's mental capacity was held on 6 February 2008 before Federal District Court Judge Sam Sparks. The medical and scientific evidence presented before the Court consisted of expert opinions from psychiatrists, psychologists and neuropsychologists on behalf of both the State and Mr Panetti. The Court heard live evidence from fellow inmates, the prison guards and the chaplain who had contact with Mr Panetti on death row and reviewed the extensive documentation of Mr Panetti's mental illness as contained in medical, social security and prison records. Finally the Court also listened to eleven hours of taped conversations between Mr Panetti and his relatives and visitors as recorded by the state during his visitation hours between December 2007 and January 2008.
On 26 March 2008 Federal Judge Sam Sparks found Scott Panetti competent to be executed concluding that:
"Panetti was mentally ill when he committed his crime and continues to be mentally ill today. However, he has both a factual and rational understanding of his crime, his impending death, and the causal retributive connection between the two. Therefore, if any mentally ill person is competent to be executed for his crimes, this record establishes it is Scott Panetti."
The Court's decision is in two parts, to access it click part 1 and part 2.
Letters Asking for Clemency
- January 15, 2004 - The European Union has issued a demarche asking Governor Perry to grant Scott Panetti clemency.
- January 15, 2004 - The European Union has issued a demarche asking the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant Scott Panetti clemency.
- January 12, 2004 - Government of Switzerland - letter asking for clemency, signed by Ambassador of Switzerland, Christian Blickenstorfer.
News
Death Row Case Brings Global Attention--Man Suffers from Mental Illness,
Advocates Say
With less than 2 weeks left before Scott Panetti is to be executed in
Texas, the Wisconsin native's case is attracting international attention
from mental health advocates, death penalty opponents and Hollywood
celebrities.
Family members fear it may be too late.
"I'm hoping for the best but fearing the worst," said Panetti's mother,
Yvonne Panetti of Sheldon, Wis.
Panetti, 45, is scheduled to die by lethal injection Feb. 5 for the
September 1992 shooting deaths of Jose and Amanda Alvarado, his wife's
parents, in Fredericksburg, Texas.
A standout football player on Poynette High School's 1975 team, Panetti
had been suffering from severe and persistent mental illness for more than
a dozen years before the killings, causing him to hallucinate and act out
violently. He had been hospitalized 11 times in the years leading up to
the murders.
Amnesty International, a human rights organization that lobbies against
the death penalty, has issued an urgent appeal to its members worldwide
asking them to sign and circulate a petition to the Texas Board of Pardons
and Paroles.
So far, more than 1,100 people have signed, including Sister Helen
Prejean, a Catholic nun and death penalty opponent who was featured in the
1995 movie "Dead Man Walking"; Susan Sarandon, the actress who portrayed
Prejean in the movie; Hollywood director Frank Oz; singer Hank Williams
III; and members of various heavy metal bands.
Panetti's sister, Victoria, is a makeup artist in Hollywood and has been
active in garnering support for her brother.
Civil rights advocates are trying to stop the execution, arguing that
Panetti was mentally ill at the time he represented himself - at his own
insistence - at his trial in 1995. His lawyer now says the judge in the
case should not have allowed Panetti to represent himself.
The lawyer who served as Panetti's standby lawyer at the trial has
subsequently testified that Panetti had no grasp of reality during the
trial, that he tended to ramble nonsensically and that he intimidated the
jury with his bizarre and threatening demeanor.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused last month to hear Panetti's case, setting
in motion the date for his execution.
Michael Gross, the lawyer now representing Panetti, has filed a final
appeal on the grounds that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who
is mentally impaired. The trial judge refused the appeal without a
hearing, and the matter is now before an appeals court in Texas.
Meanwhile, preparations are being made for Panetti's execution.
"He got a form the other day asking what he would like his last meal to
be," Yvonne Panetti said. "And they want to know what he wants done with
the body."
In his more than 8 years on death row in Texas, Panetti has attracted the
attention of international death penalty opponents, including people from
Switzerland, Ireland and Australia who visit him regularly.
Panetti's case got a boost in 1999 when his former wife, Sonja Alvarado,
the daughter of the victims, filed an affidavit saying that the prosecutor
in the case ignored critical evidence that likely would have swayed a jury
to give him a sentence of life in prison.
Texas authorities have declined requests to comment on the case.
Sonja Alvarado said she told the prosecutor that she had pleaded with the
police in Fredericksburg several times to take Panetti's guns from him
because he was exhibiting signs of mental illness and refusing to take his
medication.
But the police would not remove Panetti's guns, she said. In fact,
Alvarado took Panetti's guns to the police station in the hopes of keeping
them away from him, but the police returned Panetti's guns to him a few
days before the killings, she said.
"I told the DA I wanted to add more events as they occurred," Alvarado
said in her affidavit. "He told me it was best to leave things as they
were, and they would stick to the original statement given.
"I feel now that I was used on the stand so that I would cover up for the
law enforcement mistakes and the sheriff of knowing Scott's mental illness
for years, not to mention all the other reports that were not written
out."
She concluded, "I know now that Scott is mentally ill and should not be
put to death."
Yvonne Panetti says she and her husband, Jack, will be allowed to spend
eight hours visiting their son behind a glass partition on the Monday and
Tuesday before the execution, scheduled for Feb. 5 at 6 p.m.
(source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Judge Grants Stay of Execution in Texas
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge Wednesday blocked the execution of a convicted killer whose erratic behavior at trial included dressing like a cowboy and trying to subpoena Jesus Christ.
Acting a day before Scott Panetti was set to die by injection, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks granted a 60-day stay so that a state judge can reconsider whether Panetti is too mentally ill to be executed.
Sparks said evidence presented by Panetti's attorney indicates Panetti is ``delusional and misunderstands whether and why he will be executed.''
Panetti, 45, was sentenced to death for the 1992 slayings of his estranged wife's parents.
During his trial, he fired his attorney and insisted on representing himself. Panetti wore cowboy attire during the proceedings, mimicking the Ringo Kid, the John Wayne character in the classic Western ``Stagecoach.''
Panetti blamed the shootings on ``Sarge,'' one of his personalities. During jury selection, he flipped a coin to decide whether a potential juror should be seated on the panel. He tried to subpoena Jesus and John F. Kennedy.
The Texas attorney general's office said it would not ask the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the reprieve in time to carry out the execution, which had been scheduled for Thursday evening.
``We will prepare to address the issue through the appropriate legal channels,'' spokesman Jerry Strickland said.
Gillespie County Sheriff Milton Jung said a court already determined Panetti was competent when he was allowed to stand trial. ``He's the best actor there is,'' Jung told The Associated Press. ``I guarantee you the guy's an actor.''
Panetti's supporters said that before his arrest, he had been hospitalized for mental illness 14 times.
But the sheriff said most of those instances were to ``dry out'' from alcohol or drug abuse. ``They're pushing this way out of proportion,'' he said.
Associated Press - February 4, 2004
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL URGENT ACTION
UA 06/04 Death penalty / Legal concern
USA (Texas) Scott Louis Panetti (m), aged 45
Scott Panetti, white, is scheduled to be executed in Texas on 5 February
2004. He was sentenced to death in 1995 for killing his parents-in-law in
1992. He has a long history of serious mental illness, including
schizophrenia. He was hospitalized more than a dozen times in numerous
facilities before the crime.
Scott Panetti and his second wife, Sonja Alvarado, separated in August
1992 because of his drinking and abusive behavior. Sonja Alvarado took
their three-year-old daughter and went to stay with her parents, Amanda
and Joe Alvarado. She obtained a restraining order against her husband.
However, on the morning of 8 September 1992, Scott Panetti shaved his
head, dressed in military fatigues and drove to the Alvarados' home,
taking a sawn-off shotgun and a rifle with him. He broke into the house
and shot his parents-in-law at close range with the rifle. He allowed
Sonja and their daughter to leave. Later that day he changed into a suit
and gave himself up to the police. He subsequently said that "Sarge" (an
auditory hallucination) controlled him at the time of the crime, that
divine intervention had meant that the victims did not suffer, and that
demons had been laughing at him as he left the house.
In July 1994 a hearing to determine whether Scott Panetti was competent to
stand trial - that is, whether he had sufficient mental capacity to
understand his situation and to assist in his defense - was declared a
mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. A second hearing
was held in September. His lawyer testified that in the previous two
years, he had had no useful communication with Scott Panetti because of
his delusional thinking. A psychiatrist for the defense concluded that
Panetti was not competent to stand trial. A psychiatrist who testified for
the prosecution agreed with the previous diagnoses of schizophrenia, and
that Scott Panetti's delusional thinking could interfere with his
communications with his legal counsel, particularly under situations of
stress such as in a courtroom. However, he concluded that the defendant
was competent to stand trial. The jury agreed.
Scott Panetti then waived his right to counsel, and the case went to trial
in September 1995 with the defendant acting as his own lawyer. Scott
Panetti dressed as a cowboy during the proceedings, and gave a rambling
presentation in his defense. Numerous people who attended the trial as
witnesses have variously described the trial as a "farce", a "joke", a
"circus", and a "mockery". In post-conviction affidavits they concluded,
from their prior knowledge of Panetti and their observations of him during
the proceedings, that he was incompetent to stand trial. For example, a
doctor who had previously treated Panetti for his mental illness stated:
"I thought to myself 'My God. How in the world can our legal system allow
an insane man to defend himself? How can this be just?'" Another doctor
who had treated Scott Panetti for schizophrenia in 1986 concluded that
Panetti was "acting out a role of an attorney as a facet of the mental
illness, not a rational decision to represent himself". An attorney called
by Scott Panetti as a witness later stated: "The courtroom had the
atmosphere of a circus. The judge just seemed to let Scott run free with
his irrational questions and courtroom antics."
Another lawyer, who was appointed as Panetti's stand-by counsel, wrote in
an affidavit: "This was not a case for the death penalty. Scott's life
history and long term mental problems made an excellent case for
mitigating evidence. Scott did not present any mitigating evidence because
he could not understand the proceeding." He recalled that Panetti had
dressed in a costume "like an old TV western", including cowboy hat,
trousers tucked into his cowboy boots, and cowboy shirt. The lawyer added
that Scott Panetti had "wanted to subpoena Jesus Christ, JFK, actors,
actresses, and people who had died... His trial was truly a judicial
farce, and a mockery of self-representation. It should never have been
allowed to happen". The lawyer said that he spoke to two jurors who "told
me that Scott probably would not have received the death penalty if the
case had been handled differently". Another lawyer spoke to two other
jurors. They "said that if Scott had been represented by attorneys that he
would not have received the death penalty". One of them said that the
jurors had voted for death out of their fear of his irrational behavior at
the trial. In Texas a jury can only vote for death if they decide that the
defendant will pose a future danger to society if allowed to live.
Scott Panetti's father recalled in an affidavit that his son's behavior at
the trial had been "very bizarre": "I wanted to tell the judge to stop the
trial because my son was sick and incompetent". Scott Panetti's sister
said in her affidavit: "I think that justice broke down in my brother's
trial. It was not fair to let a mentally ill man be his own attorney when
he did not know what he was doing. I am sorry to say that the trial was a
farce. It was a circus-like atmosphere. I never expected justice to allow
this." Sonja Alvarado, the victims' daughter, has also described the trial
as a "circus" and "a big joke". In a 1999 affidavit she said: "I know now
that Scott is mentally ill and should not be put to death".
A psychiatrist who evaluated Scott Panetti in 1997 concluded that he
suffers from schizoaffective disorder (a combination of schizophrenia and
manic depression). This expert added that Panetti's "decision to waive his
own counsel was under the influence of persecutory delusions, and his
ability to represent himself in court was substantially impaired by
disturbances in his thought processes". The psychiatrist further concluded
that Panetti had not been competent to stand trial.
The United Nations Commission for Human Rights has repeatedly called on
countries which still use the death penalty not to use it against anyone
suffering from a mental disorder. The execution of the insane - those who
do not understand the reason for, or reality of their impending punishment
- is unconstitutional in the USA, under the 1986 US Supreme Court
decision, Ford v Wainwright. This has not prevented numerous mentally ill
prisoners from being executed. Scott Panetti's lawyer has initiated a Ford
claim, but the trial-level court has dismissed it without holding a
hearing. The issue is now on appeal to the higher courts. Since executions
resumed in the USA in 1977, 887 prisoners have been put to death
nationwide, 314 of them in Texas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, opposing the
execution of Scott Panetti and seeking clemency, in your own words, using
the above information as you see fit. In appeals to the Board of Pardons
please include Scott Panetti's prisoner number #999164.
APPEALS TO:
Rissie Owens, Chairperson
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401
Austin TX 78711-3401
Fax: 1 512 463 8120
Salutation: Dear Ms Chairperson
The Honorable Rick Perry
Governor of Texas
State Capitol
PO Box 12428
Austin TX 78711
Fax: 1 512 463 1849 / 0039 / 1932
Salutation: Dear Governor
COPIES TO:
If you can send a copy of your appeal to arrive with the defense lawyer
before 16 January, please do so, to:
Michael Gross
106 South Saint Mary's Street, Suite 260
San Antonio TX 78205
Fax: 1 210 354 1920.
You may also write brief letters (not more than 250 words) to:
Letters to the Editor
Austin-American Statesman
PO Box 670
Austin TX 78767
Fax: 1 512 912 5927
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/standing/letters.html
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.
Amnesty International is a worldwide grassroots movement that promotes and
defends human rights.
This Urgent Action may be reposted if kept intact, including contact
information and stop action date (if applicable). Thank you for your help
with this appeal.
Urgent Action Network
Amnesty International USA
PO Box 1270
Nederland CO 80466-1270
Email: uan@aiusa.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/
Phone: 303 258 1170
Fax: 303 258 7881
----------------------------------
END OF URGENT ACTION APPEAL
----------------------------------
|
