Madison v. Alabama

Whether, under the Eighth Amendment, a state may execute prisoner when the prisoner does not remember the capital offense for which he is to be executed due to cognitive impairments.

Respondent seeks to execute Petitioner, who has been on Alabama’s death row for over 30 years. The first time that Petitioner was sentenced to death, Petitioner challenged his competency to be executed. Petitioner suffered strokes, leading to physical and cognitive decline, and does not remember the offense for which he is to be executed. The Circuit Court denied his claim and Alabama law prohibited any appeal in state court. Petitioner then challenged his claim in federal court. The Eleventh Circuit found that Petitioner was incompetent to be executed and granted habeas corpus relief. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit. and Respondent then sought an expedited executed date. In response, Petitioner sought relief at the Circuit Court, this time with new evidence that the court-appointed expert, whose report the Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court relied on to deny Petitioner’s claim, was suspended from the practice of psychology due to a narcotics addiction. Petitioner now requests that the U.S. Supreme Court stay his execution and grant certiorari to determine whether Respondent may execute him considering his mental condition. Petitioner asserts that Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman provide that the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from executing those who are the incompetent. Petitioner argues that because he does not remember the offense for which he is to be punished due to neurocognitive impairments, the Eighth Amendment does not allow for his execution. Petitioner’s execution would serve no retributive and deterrent purpose, and would contravene the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.