A recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle highlights the case of Texas death-row inmate Milton Mathis, whose IQ of 62 places him well below the threshold for intellectual disability (formerly called "mental retardation"). Mr. Mathis faces execution on June 21, despite the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which banned the execution of inmates with intellectual disabilities. The Chronicle noted, "If put to death, Milton Mathis would have one of the lowest — if not the lowest - undisputed IQ scores of any Texas inmate sentenced to capital punishment since that ruling took effect." Mathis' lawyers raised this issue in both his state and federal appeals, but the state court rejected the claim, and the federal court denied a stay, not realizing that doing so prevented further litigation in state court. The federal judge later realized her error, but at that point, she lacked jurisdiction to change the ruling. Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, said, "What is really troubling is that in this case process has trumped substance. The evidence of mental retardation is compelling, overwhelming, and, because the state courts heard it, the federal courts have not allowed the evidence to be introduced." The Chronicle concluded: "In essence, barring federal intervention or the governor's clemency, Texas will unlawfully and unjustly execute a mentally retarded individual because of legal technicalities and the state's failure to weigh Mathis' clinical condition." Read full editorial below.
Desert Storm veteran Cleve Foster (pictured), who faced execution in Texas for the third time this year for a murder nearly a decade ago, was granted another stay by the U.S. Supreme Court on September 20. The Supreme Court stopped Foster's execution twice before in 2011. In January, six hours before his scheduled execution, the Justices granted a reprieve to allow them more time to consider his appeal. In April, the Court again halted his execution when his lawyers sought a rehearing, claiming that Foster was innocent and had ineffective legal assistance at his trial and during the early stages of his appeal. They later lifted the stay. Foster has always maintained that his friend was responsible for the murder. The friend also received the death penalty for the crime but died of cancer before he was executed. 
Texas inmate Duane Buck (pictured) is one of seven death row inmates whose death sentences were tainted by improper racial testimony presented at their trials. In 2000, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now Senator) confessed the state's error to the U.S. Supreme Court, noting that seven cases had been tainted by improper prosecution testimony. "It is inappropriate to allow race to be considered as a factor in our criminal justice system," Cornyn said. "The people of Texas want and deserve a system that affords the same fairness to everyone.” Six inmates received new sentencing trials, but Buck did not. All seven trials involved testimony by psychologist Walter Quijano, who told juries that defendants were more likely to commit future crimes if they were black or Hispanic. The potential for future dangerousness is a key factor in juries' sentencing decisions in Texas. The prosecutor at Buck's sentencing trial asked Quijano: "The race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons; is that correct?" "Yes," Quijano said. Originally, Quijano had been called by the defense and testified that he did not believe Buck would be dangerous in the future.
The latest edition of the Death Penalty Information Center's series of podcasts, DPIC on the Issues, is now available. This podcast addresses questions about the U.S. Supreme Court's role in overseeing the constitutionality of the death penalty. The podcast discusses the kinds of cases the Court takes on review and briefly describes a few key Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty, including Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia. The Supreme Court's role in the recent limitations on applying the death penalty, such as the ban on executing juvenile offenders and those with intellectual disabilities, is also discussed. Click here to listen to this latest 
On July 1, the Administration of President Barack Obama joined former government officials and national organizations intervening in the case of Texas death row inmate Humberto Leal Garcia. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to delay Leal's execution scheduled for July 7. The Solicitor General wrote that Leal's execution "would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international-law obligation to afford (Leal) review and reconsideration of his claim that his conviction and sentence were prejudiced by Texas authorities' failure to provide consular notification and assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations." In a 30-page brief, the Administration also stated that complying with obligations to "notify consuls in such cases would serve U.S. interests as well as those of the condemned man," including "protecting Americans abroad, fostering cooperation with foreign nations, and demonstrating respect for the international rule of law." The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has also written a letter to Texas Governor Rick Perry, asking the governor to commute Leal's sentence to life in prison.
On June 20, U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez declared Florida's death penalty unconstitutional because jurors are not required to make findings beyond a reasonable doubt on the aggravating factors that can increase a guilty defendant's sentence from life to death. The ruling mandates that defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to have all essential elements of proof in criminal cases found by a jury rather than by a judge. Legal experts say the ruling could have an important impact on other death penalty cases in the state and may lead to stays of execution. In his ruling, Judge Martinez said that Florida's sentencing system violates the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Ring v. Arizona (2002), which allowed judges to make the final sentencing choice between death and life but requires that jurors first determine whether a defendant is eligible for the death penalty. The ruling, which is subject to appeal, came in the case of Paul Evans, who may now get a new sentencing hearing. His murder conviction still stands.
The Death Penalty Information Center has released a new report, "