On August 28, 2015, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Harris County sheriff's deputy Darren Goforth was shot and killed in Cypress, Texas, while pumping gas. A 30-year-old man named Shannon Miles, who held a minor criminal history prior to the shooting, was named as the prime suspect. He was arrested the next day and charged with capital murder in relation to Goforth's death.
In the months since Miles was arrested experts for both the defense and the prosecution examined him and came to separate conclusions that he is unfit to go to trial. Prosecutors agreed with Miles' defense team that he is "schizophrenic and episodically psychotic" and incompetent to stand trial, meaning he will be committed to a state mental hospital until he can understand the charges against him. However, 61 other inmates are currently waiting for a bed in the same hospital and it will be months before Miles is moved from the Harris County Jail.
Under Texas law, a suspect can stand trial only if he meets a legal definition of competency, meaning he understands the charges against him and can aid lawyers in his defense. Miles' situation is similar to some of Houston's most infamous cases that have also raised the issue of the competency of the defendant, including Andrea Yates, the Clear Lake mother charged with capital murder in the 2001 drowning deaths of her five children, and Robert Gillham. Gillham, who has never been to trial, was accused of arson in 2009 and has been trapped in "...a revolving door of competency and incompetency" for more than six years; repeatedly sent to state hospitals where his competency is restored, then returned to the Harris County jail where his condition deteriorates again, restarting the cycle.
Houston Texas Criminal Defense Attorney George Parnham is currently advocating for implementation of local mental health services in the Harris County criminal justice system. Mr. Parnham's insistence that juries and legislators consider context and mental capacity will help move focus from verdict to treatment and catalyze a societal shift from outraged condemnation to awareness and primary prevention. He is totally committed to ensuring that his clients are heard and, to whatever extent possible, understood. In instances where misrepresentation or misstatement about the factual circumstances of an accusation have been leaked to the public, whether intentionally or not, it is imperative to "set the record straight" and do whatever can be done to level the playing field of public opinion.
Criminal defense strategies applied in these situations need to be
created for the particular offense, evidence involved and based upon the
defendant's needs. Contact Parnham & Associates today at (713) 224.3967 or use our convenient online submission form.
We will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.
Prosecutors wield more power than almost any other person in the criminal
justice system. They have the ability to either proceed with a case
or dismiss charges, to bargain with a defendant for a guilty plea, and to recommend a severe sentence or plead for leniency. Given the breadth of criminal law, a prosecutor can find reason to
prosecute almost anybody if they have the time, the money, and the
motive. Unfortunately, this unchecked power is always subject to abuse and prosecutors sometimes
engage in misconduct.
A prosecutor may commit misconduct when, in the course of their
professional duties, they act in ways that are inconsistent with ethical
mandates which they are obliged to obey. These mandates are governed by two distinct sets of rules; the legal framework that binds
prosecutors so as to ensure due process, which includes state and federal
constitutions, statutory law, rules of criminal procedure, judicial
orders, etc., and the ethical standards of the legal
profession as expressed in each state bar’s professional codes.
An act of prosecutorial misconduct may violate one or both of these codes. Prosecutors are required to abide by both.
Enforcement of the two codes differs; when prosecutors violate legal
rules as part of a criminal case, the primary recourse is for the
criminal defendant to ask to have his conviction overturned (or if the
trial is in progress, to ask the judge for a mistrial, to strike matters
from the record, or to otherwise minimize the damage caused). When
prosecutors violate professional rules, the bar complaint process is the
primary enforcement mechanism.
One of the greatest threats
to rational and fair fact‐finding in criminal cases can result from a
prosecutor hiding evidence vital in the defense of a defendant's innocence.
Between 1963, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. Maryland
that such a practice is a deprivation of due process, and 1999, at
least 381 defendants nationally had a homicide conviction thrown out
because prosecutors concealed evidence. Of the 381 defendants, 67 had
been sentenced to death. The consequences of such misconduct when it is
discovered can be serious. Convictions are reversed, cases are retried,
appeals are brought that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and public
confidence in prosecutors is undermined.
Michael Morton
In 1987 Michael Morton was arrested and charged with beating his wife to death in 1986. An investigator in the case discovered testimony that their three-year-old son had witnessed a “monster” committing the crime and that Michael Morton was not home at the time, as well as further testimony from a neighbor about a man with a green van who had been parking for weeks behind the Morton’s home. In addition, a blood-soaked bandanna was later found at a nearby construction site. Although this testimony and evidence pointed to an intruder entering the Morton’s home and killing Christine Morton in the hours after Michael Morton had left for work, the jury would never be presented with it.
After the prosecutor's refusal to call the lead investigator of the case, the defense suspected that the prosecution was hiding evidence. The prosecutor, Ken Anderson, assured that all favorable evidence had been turned over and provided the judge with a sealed file which he claimed contained all the evidence they had collected. However, the testimony and evidence which demonstrated Morton's innocence was omitted.
Questionable testimony of two state experts and a note Morton had left on the bathroom mirror was the only evidence presented by the prosecution, and this was used to prove a theory that he had killed his wife because he was angry she wouldn’t have sex with him. In February 1987, Michael Morton was convicted in a Williamson County, Texas court and sentenced to life in prison.
In February 2005 a civil attorney, together with the New York based Innocence Project, filed a motion for DNA testing in Morton's case; Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley "tenaciously fought" against DNA testing for six years before a judge finally ordered the tests. These tests did, in fact, link another man to Christine Morton's murder. After nearly 25 years in prison Michael Morton was exonerated and finally released from prison on October 4, 2011. The Innocence Project subsequently filed a motion to remove Bradley from further court proceedings, but stopped pursuing it after Bradley agreed to dismiss the indictment against Morton. That same year, the Texas Supreme Court ordered a Court of Inquiry into possible misconduct by the prosecuting attorney. Ken Anderson was now a judge, appointed to the bench by Gov. Rick Perry in 2002.
In 2012 the Texas Supreme Court convened a court of inquiry, finding that there was evidence to support Morton's contention that Ken Anderson had tampered with evidence and should have been held in contempt of court for not complying with the trial judge's order to let him review all possible exculpatory evidence. The court of inquiry began in February, two months later the court ordered Anderson to be arrested, saying “This court cannot think of a more intentionally harmful act than a prosecutor’s conscious choice to hide mitigating evidence so as to create an uneven playing field for a defendant facing a murder charge and a life sentence.” Anderson responded by claiming immunity from any prosecution under the expiry of applicable statutes of limitation. On September 23, 2013, Anderson resigned from his position as district court judge.
The following November, Anderson was found to be in contempt of court and was sentenced to 10 days in county jail, fined $500, and ordered to perform 500 hours of community service. He agreed to give up his license to practice law in exchange for having the charges of evidence tampering dropped. He was released from jail after having served five days.After the plea agreement was announced, it was publicly revealed that Williamson County District Attorney Jana Duty agreed to authorize an independent review of every case that Anderson ever prosecuted, along with every case in which Bradley successfully opposed DNA testing.
On May 16, 2013, Governor of Texas Rick Perry signed Texas Senate Bill 1611, also called the Michael Morton Act, into law. The Act is designed to ensure a more open discovery process. The bill's open file policy removes barriers for accessing evidence. Morton was present for the signing of the bill, which became law on January 1, 2014.
Sanctions for prosecutorial misconduct include appellate reversal of
convictions, finding the prosecutor in contempt of court, referring the
prosecutor to a bar association grievance committee, and removing the
prosecutor from office. However, prosecutorial
misconduct persists in large part due to the inadequacy of
these penalties. Although an appellate court can reprimand a rogue prosecutor
or reverse a
conviction based on misconduct, such sanctions still don't hold the prosecutor personally
accountable; during the course of a trial, the prosecutor is absolutely
immune from any civil liability that might arise due to his or her
official conduct. Moreover, the appellate courts can affirm a conviction
despite the presence of serious prosecutorial misconduct by merely
invoking the harmless error doctrine. Under this
doctrine, an appellate court determines that errors were of such a minor
or trivial nature that they didn't harm the defendant's rights.
If you believe that you are subject to a wrongful conviction in your case because of unfair or inappropriate actions by a prosecutor, you may be able to base an appeal or motion for post-conviction relief on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Contact us online or call 713-224-3967 today for a free consultation: we will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.
Scott Panetti received his first diagnosis of schizophrenia in 1978 at the age of 20. Between 1981 and 1992, he was hospitalized 14 times at six different institutions for showing symptoms of psychosis characterized by tangential and circumstantial thinking, hallucinations, delusions, grandiosity, and paranoia. Extensive medical records chronicle these symptoms.
In 1986 Panetti experienced a psychotic episode during which he tried to "...wash the devil from the walls of his house" and buried the family's furniture in the backyard, believing the devil was in it. He nailed the curtains shut so that “the neighbors would not film him.” Shortly before the murders in September 1992 Sonja Alvarado tried to have him committed after he "...came after her with a knife". She took his guns to the local police but they simply returned them, claiming they had no legal right to prevent Panetti from having them.
At no point was there any suggestion that he is malingering or faking symptoms.
In July 1994 a competency hearing was scheduled to determine whether Panetti was fit to stand trial. In Texas, these hearings are held before a jury: in most other states a judge determines competency with input from psychiatric professionals. The jury was unable to come to a consensus, and the judge declared a mistrial. At a second competency hearing Panetti’s lawyer testified that in the previous two years he had had no useful communication with Panetti because of his client’s delusional thinking. A psychiatrist for the defense concluded that Panetti was not competent to stand trial; a psychiatrist for the prosecution agreed with the previous diagnoses of schizophrenia, and noted that Panetti’s delusional thinking could interfere with his ability to communicate with counsel. The same doctor reported that Panetti did not know what year it was and could not identify the president.
Yet he still concluded that Panetti was competent to stand trial, and the jury agreed.
At both competency hearings Panetti was medicated with large doses of antipsychotic drugs.
In 1995 Panetti experienced what he calls an “April Fool’s Day revelation”: he believed that God had cured his schizophrenia, and stopped taking his medications. He also became convinced that he could not trust his lawyers, whom he thought were conspiring with the police and the courts; after trying to fire them the judge apparently held no further competency hearing and allowed him to represent himself. When his trial began in September of that year court documents claim that his defense could be "...described charitably as bizarre"; in fact Scott Panetti conducted his defense dressed as a cowboy in a purple suit and a hat.
He attempted to call more than 200 witnesses, including John F. Kennedy, the pope, Anne Bancroft, and Jesus Christ. (The last he later recanted: “Jesus Christ, he doesn’t need a subpoena. He’s right here with me, and we’ll get into that,” Panetti said in court.)
He interrogated one prospective jury member as to whether the person had any “Indian blood,” before launching into a tirade about an event he called “Wounded Elbow”—conflating the battle of Wounded Knee with something to do with the Ayatollah Khomeini.
He cross-examined himself on the stand, addressing his alter ego “Sarge.”
He disposed of documents prepared for him by backup counsel, convinced that the prison guards were colluding against him. He presented no
mitigating evidence.
The judge declined to accept crucial medical records because Panetti had drawn all over them.
A psychiatrist who had assessed Panetti prior to trial and witnessed the proceedings says Panetti was “acting out a role of an attorney as a facet of the mental illness, not a rational decision to represent himself at trial.” After less than two hours of deliberation, the jury found Panetti guilty of murder and recommended capital punishment. (Life without parole was unavailable in Texas at the time.) In post-conviction proceedings the judge determined that he was incompetent to waive counsel.
Panetti v. Quarterman:
In 2007 Panetti’s case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ standard for assessing his competency for execution was unconstitutional. In Panetti v. Quarterman(2007), the court emphasized that evaluating Panetti’s factual understanding of the meaning of his execution and its consequences was not sufficient in light of his severe mental illness. The objectives of capital punishment, the court wrote, are not served “if the prisoner’s mental 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 these concepts.” Both the district court and the 5th Circuit ignored the court’s direction. Neither attempted to reconcile how a severely mentally ill man like Panetti, whose delusions and reality are so intertwined that he believes the judges and the State of Texas are conspiring with Satan to execute him, can possess a rational understanding of the connection between his crime and death sentence.
The District Court showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of delusions when it found that Panetti’s delusions were not “constant,” citing an earlier visit between Panetti and his parents. Panetti’s parents would have no reason to “press his buttons” or place him under stress with challenging questions, unlike the experts who are tasked with evaluating competency. In any event, the district court overlooked evidence that Panetti did, in fact, speak of his delusions with his parents: he spoke repeatedly of his efforts to fulfill his destiny and bring the word of god to the men on death row.
For example, Panetti called the trial judge in his case a “devil worshipper” and explained: “Some of (these Death Row inmates) are possessed with devils. They’re anti- Christian, Satanists. So that’s why I’m here to deal with that.”
On appeal the 5th Circuit upheld this limited understanding of competency for execution. Under the 5th Circuit’s view, if a court can single out any shred of evidence that appears to show a prisoner’s rational understanding of the reason for his punishment, his delusional belief system and decades of severe mental illness are simply irrelevant.
The state does not dispute that Panetti believes that he would be executed for saving souls on death row, not for murder. It cannot be said that such a prisoner has the capacity to accept responsibility for his crime. If he doesn’t have a rational understanding of the link between his crime and his execution, the death penalty fails to serve its purpose as a punishment.
The courts should listen to the doctors who study psychotic disorders. The district court and the 5th Circuit’s reasoning downplays Panetti’s severe mental illness and how his delusions control his mind.
Request for Clemency:
In October 2014, a district judge signed a warrant setting Scott Panetti's execution date for December 3, 2014. Panetti’s attorneys only discovered this when they read it in the newspaper two weeks later; the office of District Attorney Bruce Curry did not notify them, as is the pattern and practice of capital law in Texas. Panetti’s attorneys might have used that time to attempt to save his life. Texas has been scheduling executions in 2015: they pushed Panetti’s ahead so it can happen in 2014.
Petitions from over 50 national evangelical leaders as well as former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul are being submitted to the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole and State Governor Rick Perry requesting them to consider granting Scott Panetti’s clemency petition and commute his death sentence to life in prison. The petitions claim that: "The execution of Scott Panetti would be a cruel injustice that would serve no constructive purpose whatsoever. When we inflict the harshest punishment on the severely mentally ill, whose culpability is greatly diminished by their debilitating conditions, we fail to respect their innate dignity as human beings."
The U.S. Supreme Court should take Panetti’s case and clarify a precise standard for determining a prisoner’s competency for execution. Current law has left the lower courts with unfettered discretion in determining which prisoners will be executed. If we want to live in a just, humane society, we cannot continue to fail to protect people with severe mental illness from execution.
Houston criminal attorney George Parnham is an expert on the defense of individuals with mental illness and a passionate advocate for legal reform of their treatment in the criminal justice system.
