| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-952 | Pa. S. Ct. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | OT 2012 |
Issue: (1) Whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania impermissibly expanded this Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence banning the execution of an insane person when it based its finding that George Banks is currently incompetent to be executed on the existence of evidence that he does not consistently exhibit a rational understanding of the existence, meaning, and purpose of his sentence given that Panetti v. Quarterman (2007) only prohibits execution of a mentally ill inmate when his delusions are so severe that he is prevented from reaching a rational understanding of the existence, purpose, and meaning of his sentence; and (2) whether the current distinction in this Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence between a death row inmate's “factual” and “rational” understandings of his sentence is problematic and requires clarification given that: (a) a death-row inmate's “rational” understanding of the existence, purpose, and meaning of his sentence can always be accurately characterized as “factual” in nature, which in turn unfairly prevents the prosecution from ever prevailing in a competency-to-be-executed proceeding where the inmate presents any evidence of irrational subjective thought about his death sentence regardless of its intensity or frequency; and (b) the courts, counsel, and mental health experts have difficulty navigating this important but elusive concept as currently articulated.
