The Supreme Court on Competency and Collateral Review

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided an important competency case. Let’s start the discussion with a quiz. Which of the following statements is true? a. A trial may be conducted even when a capital defendant is incompetent. b. Federal habeas proceedings may continue even when a petitioner/former capital defendant is incompetent. c. An execution may take place even when the condemned is insane. Process of Elimination. Most readers will quickly rule out (a), knowing that due process prohibits the trial of an incompetent defendant. See, e.g., Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) (“We have repeatedly and consistently recognized that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process.”). See also G.S. 15A-1001 (stating that “[n]o person may be tried . . . for a crime” while incompetent). Experienced capital litigators know that (c) isn’t right. Under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane.” By process of elimination, then, the answer must be (b). Yesterday’s Ruling. Indeed, (b) is correct, under the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday, which reversed two separate federal circuit courts. The case is Ryan v. Gonzalez, __ U.S. __ (2013) (Thomas, J.). Two death row inmates -- one from Arizona and one from Ohio -- sought federal habeas relief, then moved to stay the habeas proceedings based on the inmates’ asserted incompetence. Lower courts granted one inmate a stay pending a competency determination, and found the other [...]