The U.S. Supreme Court agreed recently to hear an appeal by a condemned killer from Texas whose lawyers say he is mentally retarded and has the reasoning capacity of a 7-year-old.
The court said it will use the case of Johnny Paul Penry to clarify how much opportunity jurors in death-penalty cases must have to consider the defendant's mental capacity.
Penry's lawyers also say prosecutors were improperly allowed to use a psychiatric exam report in violation of his right not to testify against himself.
On November 16, the justices blocked Penry's execution just hours before he was to be put to death. The execution will remain on hold until the justices issue a ruling, expected by July.
Penry's lawyers describe him as having an IQ of 50 to 60 and the reasoning capacity of a 7-year-old.
However, prosecutors say he is ignorant, not retarded. Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said Penry is 'a schemer, a planner and can be purposefully deceptive.'
Penry was convicted and sentenced to death for killing Pamela Moseley Carpenter in Livingston, Texas, in 1979. Carpenter was stabbed repeatedly in the chest with a pair of scissors she had been using to make Halloween decorations.
The Supreme Court threw out Penry's conviction in 1989, ruling that his rights were violated because the sentencing jury was not properly allowed to take his mental capacity into account.
But the justices also decided the Constitution allows the execution of mentally retarded killers.
Penry was retried, convicted and sentenced to death in 1990. His lawyers appealed, saying the jury again was not given enough chance to consider his mental capacity.
The jury had been told to consider mitigating circumstances in deciding whether Penry's conduct was deliberate, whether he was a continuing threat to society and whether his actions were provoked by the victim.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Penry's conviction and death sentence last June.
In the appeal, Penry's lawyers said the jury instruction unfairly limited jurors' consideration of his mental capacity and the fact that he suffered 'horrific' abuse by his mother when he was a child.
His lawyers also said prosecutors wrongly used a report on a 1977 psychiatric exam of Penry while he was being held on a rape charge. The doctor said he would be a danger if released, but Penry's lawyers said he was not warned his words could be used against him.
Prosecutors said the jury had ample chance to consider Penry's mental capacity, and that prosecutors could use the exam results to rebut psychological evidence offered by Penry's lawyers.
The case is Penry v. Johnson, 00-6677.