Bigby v. Dretke

Last updated
Bigby v. Dretke
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameJames Eugene Bigby v. Doug Dretke
DecidedMarch 8, 2005
Citation(s) 402 F.3d 551
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Patrick Higginbotham, Harold R. DeMoss Jr., Carl E. Stewart
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
Due Process Clause

Bigby v. Dretke 402 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2005), [1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard a case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (trial court) on the issue of the instructions given to a jury in death penalty sentencing. The decision took into account the recent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the relevance of mitigating evidence in sentencing, as in Penry v. Lynaugh .

Contents

Facts of the case

James Eugene Bigby
Born(1955-04-08)April 8, 1955
Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, U.S.
DiedMarch 14, 2017(2017-03-14) (aged 61)
Huntsville Unit, Huntsville, Texas, U.S.
Cause of death Execution by lethal injection
Criminal status Executed
Conviction(s) Capital murder
Criminal penalty Death (March 12, 1991 & September 21, 2006)
Details
DateDecember 24, 1987
Country United States
State(s) Texas
Killed4

On December 24, 1987, Grace Kehler returned home in Fort Worth, Texas, to find 26-year-old Michael Trekell (born March 27, 1961), with whom she lived, and their infant son Jayson (born August 1987) dead, the deaths ruled homicides by forensic investigators. On December 26, 1987, Fort Worth police were called to a Fort Worth motel where a police standoff occurred. James Bigby later surrendered without incident. He gave a written statement to the police confessing to the murders two days later. Bigby was charged with the murder of the male victim and of drowning the man's infant son, both of whom he knew. The mother of the murdered infant identified Bigby as being with her son just prior to his death. [1]

Bigby murdered two other men, Wesley Crane and Frank "Bubba" Johnson, the same day he killed the Trekells, but was not charged in either of their deaths. [2]

When the case came to trial in 1991, Bigby used the insanity defense with several psychiatrists testifying to his mental illness. One testified that Bigby had an intractable paranoid schizophrenia with paranoid delusions that prevented him from distinguishing between right and wrong, and concluded that Bigby committed the murders as a direct result of his mental illness. [3]

During a trial recess, Bigby removed a gun from the unoccupied bench of the judge in the courtroom, went to the judge's chambers and aimed the gun at the judge's head, saying "Let's go", after which Bigby was subdued by the judge. The defense made a motion for a mistrial and requested the judge's recusal from the case. Both defense motions were denied. The judge testified in an administrative hearing that Bigby's assault had not biased him against Bigby and the trial was allowed to continue. After the defense rested its case, the judge allowed the rebuttal by the state to introduce testimony regarding Bigby's stealing the gun and threatening the judge, portraying the incident as attempted escape, and further saying this was evidence that Bigby was conscious of his guilt and therefore not eligible for the insanity defense. [1]

After the conclusion of the trial, the jury rejected Bigby's insanity defense. The jury's verdict found Bigby guilty of capital murder in a double homicide and imposed the death penalty. [4]

Appeals

Bigby's direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stating that the trial court erred in giving the jury unconstitutional instructions, in violation of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 (1989). In Penry v. Lynaugh, the issue was the instructions given to the jury—the jury was instructed to address the issues of whether the death of the victim was deliberate, whether there was probability that the defendant would constitute a continued threat to society, and whether the conduct was an unreasonable response to provocation by the victim. In Penry v. Lynaugh the Supreme Court decided that the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights were violated because the three issues the jury was instructed to consider were not broad enough for the jury to weight the effect of mitigating evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, despite almost identical jury instructions given at the sentencing phase of Bigby's trial, affirmed both the conviction and sentence. [3]

After several subsequent denials of appeal and a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the district court, Bigby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which granted a certificate of appeal to examine Bigby's claim of denial of the right to a trial presided over by a fair and impartial judge and other claims, including the complaints of inadequate instructions to the jury as outlined in Penry v. Lynaugh. [3]

Decision

On March 8, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the district court, granted a certificate of appeal, vacated Bigby's sentence, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to grant habeas corpus relief. [1]

Aftermath

Bigby's case went to a retrial in September 2006 (double jeopardy did not apply, as the ruling did not acquit him outright), where the jury imposed the same death penalty that their counterparts had 15 years previously. Bigby's subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, and he was executed by lethal injection on March 14, 2017. [4]

Significance

Thus the court struck down jury instructions in death penalty cases that do not ask about mitigating factors including a consideration of the defendant's social, medical, and psychological history, saying that the jury must be instructed to consider mitigating factors even when answering unrelated questions. This ruling suggests that an expanded explanation including these factors be given in the jury instructions to insure the jury weighs all the mitigating factors.

This ruling also established that a defendant's mental disorder must be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing in a death penalty case, even if mental illness was not brought up in the trial. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

In criminal law, diminished responsibility is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The case is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who has an intellectual disability. At the time Atkins was decided, just 18 of the 38 death penalty states exempted mentally retarded offenders from the death penalty.

Johnny Paul Penry is a Texas prisoner serving three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without parole for rape and murder. He was on death row between 1980 and 2008, and his case generated discussion about the appropriateness of the death penalty for offenders who are thought to be intellectually disabled.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fortunato Benavides</span> American judge (1947–2023)

Fortunato Pedro Benavides was an American judge. From 1994 until 2023, he served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in Arizona—judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved"—as not unconstitutionally vague. The Court overruled the first of these holdings in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). The second of these holdings has yet to be overturned.

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case that sanctioned the death penalty for mentally disabled offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally disabled was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. However, because Texas law did not allow the jury to give adequate consideration as a mitigating factor to Johnny Paul Penry's intellectual disability at the sentencing phase of his murder trial, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Eventually, Penry was retried for capital murder, again sentenced to death, and again the Supreme Court ruled, in Penry v. Johnson, that the jury was not able to adequately consider Penry's intellectual disability as a mitigating factor at the sentencing phase of the trial. Ultimately, Penry was spared the death penalty because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which, while not directly overruling the holding in "Penry I", did give considerable negative treatment to Penry on the basis that the Eighth Amendment allowed execution of mentally disabled people.

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings. This decision reaffirmed the Court's prior holdings in Ford v. Wainwright, and Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court spelled out standards for "effectiveness" in the constitutional right to legal counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Previously the court had determined that the Sixth Amendment included the right to "effective assistance" of legal counsel, but it did not specify what constitutes "effective", thus leaving the standards for effectiveness vague. In Wiggins v. Smith, the court set forth the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Guideline 11.8.6.(1989), as a specific guideline by which to measure effectiveness and competence of legal counsel.

In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as an extenuating circumstance, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Unlike a legal defense, the presentation of mitigating factors will not result in the acquittal of a defendant. The opposite of a mitigating factor is an aggravating factor.

The Capital Jury Project (CJP) is a consortium of university-based research studies on the decision-making of jurors in death penalty cases in the United States. It was founded in 1991 and is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The goal of the CJP is to determine whether jurors' sentencing decisions conform to the constitution and do not reflect the arbitrary decisions the United States Supreme Court found when it ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia. That 1972 Supreme Court decision eliminated the death penalty, which was not reinstated until Gregg v. Georgia in 1976.

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court was asked whether evidence of the defendant's low IQ in a death penalty trial had been adequately presented to the jury for full consideration in the penalty phase of his trial. The Supreme Court held that not considering a defendant's low IQ would breach his Eighth Amendment rights and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

Smith v. Texas, 550 U.S. 297 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about a challenge to a Texas death penalty court procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, holding 5-4 that the Texas procedure was improper. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent.

Jeffery Lee "Jeff" Wood is a man on death row in the state of Texas. He was scheduled for execution in 2008 and 2016 before stays of execution were issued. As in the case of Kenneth Foster, Wood's death sentence stems from the Texas law of parties, which is related to the felony murder rule.

Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of defendants who are intellectually disabled The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court.

The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.

Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that, where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Bigby v. Dretke, 402F.3d551 (5th Cir.2005).
  2. ↑ "Execution Report: James Bigby - Page 1". www.txexecutions.org. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Romeo, Alicia A. (2006). "Mitigating Factors in the Death Penalty". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 34 (1): 118. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
  4. 1 2 "Man who killed a father and his son in Arlington in 1987 is executed", star-telegram.com; accessed March 15, 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.