Report No. 132 (2011) IACHR. Petition No. 194-04 (Estados Unidos de America)

• Petition Number: 194-04
• Year: 2011
• Report Number: 132
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: United States
• Alleged Victim: Gregory Thompson
• Case Type: Admissibility

9

REPORT No. 132/11¹

PETITION 194-04

ADMISSIBILITY

GREGORY THOMPSON

UNITED STATES

October 19, 2011

I. SUMMARY

1. On March 9, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Michael J. Passino and Marjorie Bristol of the Tennessee Justice Center (hereinafter, “the petitioners”) against the United States of America (hereinafter, “the United States” or “the State”). The petition was submitted on behalf of Gregory Thompson (hereinafter, “the alleged victim” or “Mr. Thompson”) who, at the time of its submission, was deprived of his liberty on death row in the state of Tennessee.

2. The petitioners claim that Mr. Thompson suffers from a serious mental illness and therefore could not be executed. They also contend that the state of Tennessee violated Mr. Thompsons due process rights by withholding information from the courts and the defense about the existence and severity of his mental illness and that the alleged victim’s trial counsel did not provide effective representation. For its part, the State asserts that the petition is inadmissible due to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It also points out that Mr. Thompson’s competency to be executed has been reviewed and upheld in state and federal courts and that the extensive legal file shows that the alleged victim’s due process rights have been respected.

3. Without prejudging the merits of the complaint, after examining the position of the petitioners and the State, and pursuant to the requirements set out in Articles 31 to 34 of its Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission decides to declare the case admissible for the purpose of examining the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, “the American Declaration”). The IACHR also decides to notify the parties of its decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.

2. PROCESS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

4. The IACHR received the petition on March 9, 2004 and on the 31^st of that month, forwarded the relevant parts to the State, granting it a two month period in which to submit its observations. On April 16, 2004 the State requested a sixty-day extension, which was denied by the Inter-American Commission, since the alleged victim’s execution was scheduled for August 19, 2004.

5. The Inter-American Commission received additional information from the petitioners on May 20, 2004, which was forwarded to the State. On June 30 of that year, the IACHR received the State’s response, which was forwarded to the petitioners with a 14 day period to submit their observations given that the victim’s execution date was imminent. On August 5, 2004, the State reported that Mr. Thompson had been granted a stay of execution on grounds that domestic remedies were still pending resolution.

5. The petitioners sent additional information on September 15, 2005 and January 23, 2006, and both communications were duly forwarded to the State. On March 1, 2006, the State requested a 30-day extension to respond to those observations, and this was granted by the Inter-American Commission. On April 7, 2006, the IACHR received additional information from the petitioners and, on June 2, 2006, it received the State’s response; each of these communications was duly forwarded to the other party.

5. On July 23, 2010, the Executive Secretariat requested updated information from the petitioners. The response was received on August 6, 2010, and forwarded to the State.

Precautionary Measures

5. On March 31, 2004, the IACHR notified the State that precautionary measures had been granted on behalf of the alleged victim, and requested a stay of execution until such time as it should pronounce on the merits of the petition.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioners

5. According to the original petition, in 1985, Mr. Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Manchester, Coffee County, Tennessee. According to the available information, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the sentence on direct appeal and, in 1990, the United States Supreme Court denied the certiorari petition.² The petitioners assert that state post-conviction proceedings were rejected in 1997. They also point out that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied a federal habeas corpus petition, and that the Tennessee Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, respectively, refused to review the case, after which an initial execution date was set for August 19, 2004. They assert that each one of the claims submitted to the IACHR had been duly presented to the domestic courts on one or more occasions.

5. The petitioners’ main claim is the alleged mental incapacity of Mr. Thompson, who they claim had been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, schizo-affective disorder, and schizophrenia. They point out that this severe mental illness has been documented by professionals of the state over a nearly twenty year period and that at the time the petition was submitted, the alleged victim was heavily medicated with anti-psychotics, and mood stabilizers. The petitioners claim that executing someone who is mentally incompetent is inconsistent with due process and with the prohibition against cruel, infamous, and unusual punishment recognized under international law and therefore a violation of Articles I, XVII, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration.

5. The petitioners state that following the conviction, Mr. Thompson entered a request for an evidentiary hearing before the Circuit Court for Coffee County to determine his mental competency to be executed. They attached, as evidence, the reports written by two psychiatrists and a clinical psychologist who concluded after meeting with Mr. Thompson that he was incompetent to be executed. The alleged victim also allegedly submitted an extensive medical history created in large part by the state of Tennessee itself. The petitioners indicate that the Court, without offering any evidence whatsoever, denied the request for a hearing on grounds that the alleged victim did not demonstrate a prima facie lack of competency and also because Mr. Thompson understood that he was going to be executed.³ The motion presented before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was denied on May 12, 2004.

5. After the petition was lodged, the Court of Appeals vacated its earlier opinion, stayed the execution of the alleged victim, and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The petitioner explains that the Court of Appeals found that there was substantial evidence that showed that Mr. Thompson was suffering from severe mental illness at the time the crime was committed and decided that this, and other evidence concerning the mental health of the alleged victim, was not made known to the jury during the trial. The Court took the view that had the jury been aware of Mr. Thompson’s personal history, there was a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance and for this reason, trial counsel had not been effective.

5. The state of Tennessee appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court which, on August 29, 2005, reversed the Court of Appeals ruling in a 4-5 vote, on grounds that the latter had abused its discretionary powers by failing to notify the parties that it was reconsidering its earlier opinion. The petitioners argue that four of the judges agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning and that the other five elevated procedural rules above constitutional rights. The Tennessee Supreme Court scheduled the execution for February 7, 2006. On January 5, 2006, however, the District Court stayed the execution in order to assess the mental state of the alleged victim.

5. In the last communication received, the petitioners report that on September 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court in order for the latter to rule first with respect to the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and, should that claim be denied, to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine Mr. Thompson’s competency to be executed. The petitioners note that the state of Tennessee appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court. The appeal was still pending on August 6, 2010, the date on which the petitioners’ final communication was received. According to publicly available information, on October 4, 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, and the case therefore would still be pending in the federal courts.⁴

5. The petitioners also contend that the state of Tennessee violated due...