Death Penalty USA - Gary T Allen Case an urgent appeal
In the landmark 2002 case Atkins v Virginia the US Supreme Court ruled that
executions of people suffering ‘mental retardation’ (or Intellectual Disability
as it is also known) would be a violation of the Constitution’s ban on ‘cruel
and unusual punishment’ and thereby unconstitutional.
An execution falling into this category is scheduled to take
place in Oklahoma next Thursday, 12th April 2012.
Garry T. Allen was convicted in Oklahoma for the murder of
his partner, Lawanna Gail Titswoth in 1986; and is currently on death row, his
execution scheduled for Thursday 12th April 2012.
During the course of his incarceration, Allen has made a
number of appeals against sentence including in 1996 and 2008. In both case the
appeals were rejected and the courts found Allen to be mentally competent to
face execution, despite in the 1996 case considering and accepting the original
trial evidence which suggested that Allen had suffered from a lifelong series
of serious mental health issues, as the following extracts from the 1996 appeal show:
‘11. The record shows extensive mitigating evidence
was presented by defense expert, Dr. Nelda Ferguson. She testified Allen was
raised in poverty and hunger in an unstable family led by an alcoholic mother
who rejected him. As a teenager Allen suffered debilitating mood swings which
resulted in five or six suicide attempts. He began to abuse alcohol and drugs
when he was seventeen or eighteen years old. All of Allen's siblings are
alcoholics. Even though Allen's IQ indicates he is bright, he ultimately
dropped out of high school after a six month placement in the Boley State
School. While serving in the Navy, Allen was hospitalized for psychological
problems, and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. He had also been admitted into
the Oklahoma City Veteran's Administration hospital for psychological problems.
12. Dr. Ferguson concluded the appellant was
genetically predisposed to mental illness, and diagnosed Allen as having a
personality disorder related to schizophrenia. He could not form and keep
long-term relationships, he had little impulse control, and drinking greatly
exacerbated these problems. Dr. Ferguson's testimony was supported by Allen's
parents who testified to mental illness on both sides of the family, and
Allen's ex-wife who testified to Allen's inability to control his temper. Allen
himself testified he drank whenever possible.
13. Most of the evidence on which appellant bases this
claim was in fact introduced: the maternal rejection; the drug and alcohol
abuse; the hospitalization while in the Navy; and the personality disorder. The
only challenged evidence not introduced is the possibility Allen suffered from
Reye's syndrome, the fact the environment of the Boley State Home was violent,
and the specific label of organic brain damage. Given the very thorough mental
health evidence presented by Dr. Ferguson, we find beyond a reasonable doubt
the omission of this evidence did not undermine the validity of the
resentencing hearing.
15. …..in this case the evidence of mental and social
disability was credible, well developed, and uncontroverted.....’
There is therefore adequate evidence to suggest that
at the time of the killing, Garry Allen was not only self-medicating an
underlying mental illness with excessive drinking, but he had a history of
mental illness, possible schizophrenia, diminished responsibility and control,
and other potential illnesses which were never fully discussed including
possible Reye’s Syndrome which
can degeneratively affect the brain.
There are also suggestions that Allen is suffering from frontal lobe brain damage either through illness or through a gunshot injury sustained at the
time of his apprehension for his crime and indications of dementia brought on
by seizures, drug use and the gunshot wound as confirmed by psychological
examination by a court appointed doctor as confirmed by an article by the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death
penalty.
Allen also does not recall the killing now and did not
appear to either during and shortly after the event although during the trial
he did admit to his crimes and has since been highly remorseful. His mental
health has however continued to deteriorate during his time on Death Row as is
claimed on this extract from a 2005 Amnesty International article:
‘.....Garry Allen has epilepsy, which has apparently
worsened during his time on death row. He has frequent seizures and doctors
have said that he is so confused for periods after these seizures that he would
not understand the reality of or reason for his impending execution. In 1993,
Garry Allen’s IQ was measured at 111, above average. By 1999, it had dropped to
75. Doctors have reportedly put this down to his ongoing epileptic seizures
combined with head injuries.....’
This examination was undertaken in 1999. it is probably fair
to say that Allen’s condition has worsened since then bringing him within the
remit of Atkins v Virginia.
In 2005 the Oklahoma board of Pardon and Parole (OPP) in
light of the compelling facts regarding Allen’s mental health in an
unprecedented move recommended that the Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin grant
clemency for Allen. This has so far been refused.
However the fact that the OPP board voted 4 to 1 in favour of
clemency and that the board included one member who consistently votes against
clemency in many capital cases shows that there was and remains significant
weight to the arguments and evidence establishing that Allen must not be
executed, but should instead have his capital sentence commuted to life
imprisonment.
As such, where the Supreme Court decision in Atkins v
Virginia renders the execution of death row inmates suffering from mental
retardation / impairment, proceeding with the execution of Allen now would not
only be inhumane (as all executions in the USA are), but also very likely
unconstitutional. It must not be allowed to proceed in light of the pressing
evidence against.
The argument that Allen should not be executed on the
basis of his mental impairment is a persuasive one but not the only one which
may be relevant. The US Supreme Court held in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399 (1986)) that executing the insane is unconstitutional,
meaning those inmates who are so out of touch with reality that they cannot
understand their punishment or the purpose of it. It could be, and has been,
argued that Garry T. Allen is incapable of understanding the punishment he
faces and therefore his sentence should be commuted to life in prison.
In this unusual and disturbing case, it seems that
even the family of the victim do not want the execution to take place. Speaking out last week, Jasmine Allen,
granddaughter of Garry Allen said:
“....Our efforts to persuade
Governor Fallin to reconsider this decision are in full swing, with calls,
letters, petitions to the Governor, letters to editors, news conference,
etc. My mother and I want to thank the
OK-CADP (Oklahoma Coalition Against The Death Penalty), our friends and the public, for any energy, prayers, and
assistance they can send our way.....”
What can you do now?
●
Tweet
this post to your followers or publicise through facebook or to Governor Fallin
●
Publicise
this in any way you can, twitter, facebook, Linkedin, anywhere. Strength is in
numbers in these cases. Allen is scheduled to be executed on Thursday 12th,
time is therefore of the essence.
Post
co-authored by Julliette Frangos & Mike Farrell-Deveau, April 9th 2012.
Links
