Justices to Weigh Whether States May Execute Insane

The Supreme Court, acting in the case of a Florida inmate who says he is the Pope and owns the prison where he is being held, agreed Monday to decide whether the Constitution prevents the state from executing a condemned murderer who his lawyers say is insane.

The justices said they will review the appeal of Alvin Ford, a 32-year-old convict who has been on Death Row for 11 years for slaying a Fort Lauderdale police officer during an attempted robbery.

The ruling, expected by next summer, could result in a sharp change in the way states determine the mental competence of prisoners sentenced to death.

All states that provide for capital punishment, including California, have adopted laws or policies that generally honor a centuries-old legal doctrine that bars the execution of persons so disturbed that they do not understand that they are being put to death and why.

State Rules Differ

Some states allow lawyers or others to initiate competency proceedings. California requires mental exams upon scheduling of an execution. But most states leave the issue largely to the discretion of wardens or other officials.

Lawyers for Ford contended that when the issue is raised, the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires a full, due-process evidentiary hearing and a formal finding of mental competence before any executions take place.

Florida authorities replied that there is no constitutional barrier to such executions and that any determination of competence should remain discretionary with the states.

Conviction Not an Issue

Ford’s conviction and sentence are not at issue in the case (Ford vs. Wainwright, 85-5542), nor is his sanity at trial being contested. His lawyers argue that he went insane while in prison, citing the findings by two defense psychiatrists who pronounced him a “paranoid schizophrenic” and incompetent to be executed.

The lawyers say that Ford calls himself Pope John III and says he has purchased the prison where he has been kept. They say that Florida’s procedure, in which the governor reviews written psychiatric reports to determine competency, do not adequately ensure against inaccurate or unfair findings.

State Attorneys’ View

On the other side, state attorneys pointed out that the psychiatrists appointed by Gov. Bob Graham to conduct an examination all concluded that Ford was mentally fit for execution.

The state argued that if the court rules for Ford, it would invite countless other last-ditch, time-consuming claims of mental incompetence from among the more than 1,500 inmates now on Death Row in the United States.

In another case, the justices agreed to decide whether the federal Food and Drug Administration must adopt stricter controls over the poisonous substances that unavoidably enter the nation’s food supply through food processing or pesticide contamination. At issue is whether the FDA may continue to use the informal, case-by-case method to determine acceptable levels of such substances or must adopt formal rules after public hearings.

Administration Appeal

The court will hear an appeal from the Reagan Administration (Young vs. Community Nutrition Institute, 85-664) that challenges a federal appeals court ruling requiring what the Administration said would be “time-consuming and burdensome” formal rule-making.

In question is a substance called aflaxtoxin, a cancer-causing mold that is found on corn and other crops. The FDA has long permitted shipments of corn so long as they do not exceed permissible levels of aflaxtoxin. Two consumer groups went to court against the FDA, seeking to force formal rules for controlling the substance.

In a California case (O’Connor vs. Ortega, 85-530), the justices agreed to decide whether the right to privacy bars state officials from conducting a warrantless search of a state employee’s office during an internal investigation.