Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Constitution bars the execution of mentally retarded people as “cruel and unusual” punishment. The Court said it will hear an appeal by North Carolina death-row inmate Ernest McCarver, whose execution the justices halted this month just hours before he was to be put to death. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on a case involving a Texas death-row inmate whose lawyers say he is mentally retarded and has the mind of a 7-year-old. However, the justices are not being asked in that case to decide whether the Constitution prohibits executing the mentally retarded. In the Texas case, Johnny Paul Penry’s lawyers contend jurors who sentenced him to death for murder did not have the chance to properly consider his mental capacity. The Supreme Court used Penry’s case in 1988 to rule that the Constitution allows the execution of mentally retarded killers, although the court threw out his first conviction. McCarver, 40, was convicted of the January 1987 stabbing and choking death of Woodrow Hartley, a 71-year-old worker at the Concord cafeteria where McCarver had worked. McCarver’s lawyers say he is mentally retarded and has the mind of a 10-year-old child and reads at a third-grade level. His appeal asks whether “national standards have evolved such that executing a mentally retarded man would violate” the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The appeal cites “society’s newly evolved consensus against executing the mentally retarded.” Thirteen capital-punishment states prohibit execution of the mentally retarded, his lawyers said. Another 12 states do not have capital punishment. Lawyers for the state said considerable evidence showed that McCarver was not mentally retarded, but that even if he was, his execution would not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court halted McCarver’s execution on March 1 after he had been served his last meal. Hours earlier, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley had denied his clemency petition. McCarver’s most recent IQ test, arranged by the defense team, pegged his score at 67, but his IQ was measured at between 70 and 80 before his 1988 trial. In denying clemency, Easley said McCarver had planned and orchestrated Hartley’s murder and was motivated by revenge against a former co-worker. He said McCarver was competent enough to gain employment and earn driving privileges, and that no court had found him incompetent. Defense lawyers had asked Easley to commute McCarver’s sentence to life in prison. The case is McCarver v. North Carolina, 00-8727. Copyright 2001 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.