Case No. 17-7505 | Ala. Cir. Ct.
Preview by Kelsey M. Stein, Senior Projects Editor
Madison v. Alabama could further limit the circumstances in which states can pursue capital punishment. In this case, the Court will evaluate its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in the context of an aging death row population—particularly the constitutional issues surrounding competency, dementia, and deteriorating health. The timing is significant because the case will be evaluated by a Court that no longer includes Justice Anthony Kennedy—often a key fifth vote in death penalty cases. Moreover, the Justices remain sharply divided on capital punishment in an age when imposition and application of the death penalty are waning. See generally Brandon L. Garrett, Alexander Jakubow, and Ankur Desai, The American Death Penalty Decline, 107 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 561 (2017).
Vernon Madison has been on Alabama’s death row for more than three decades after his conviction in the 1985 murder of a police officer. His conviction was overturned twice for constitutional violations at trial, and he then was convicted in a third trial in 1998. The state of Alabama twice has scheduled Madison’s execution, resulting in two eleventh-hour stays. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay to consider Madison’s competency claim. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, where a 4–4 decision left the stay in place. In 2017, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed Madison’s habeas petition and found him incompetent to be executed, but the Supreme Court later reversed that decision. Alabama subsequently set Madison’s execution date for January 2018.
Over the past several years, Madison has suffered a series of debilitating strokes, causing memory loss, brain damage, slurred speech, blindness, and an inability to walk independently. His attorneys presented evidence of his condition in state court, arguing that he has no memory of the crime for which the state plans to execute him. Madison was denied relief, and the case currently pending is an appeal challenging that ruling.
Madison is represented by attorneys from the Alabama-based Equal Justice Initiative. They first argue that a state should not be permitted to execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him with no memory of the offense that led to his death sentence. Their argument centers on the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment,” U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and seeks to advance the Court’s decisions in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), and Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). In their second line of argumentation, Madison’s attorneys are asking the Court for a broader finding that the Eighth Amendment’s reliance on human dignity and evolving standards of decency should prevent the execution of individuals with impaired mental competency. National professional groups of psychologists and psychiatrists filed an amicus brief in support of the argument that executing an individual with severe vascular dementia constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
In response, attorneys for the state of Alabama argue that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit states from executing someone who cannot recall committing an offense. The state asserts that Madison’s lack of a personal, independent recollection of committing the specific act is irrelevant, as it is distinct from his knowledge that his impending execution is pursuant to a capital murder conviction. The state asserts that Madison does not meet the constitutional standard requiring that he lack a rational understanding of the reasons for his execution, and that his execution would not subvert societal values and conceptions of decency. They also argue that Madison’s execution would comport with the societal goals of capital punishment, primarily retribution and deterrence.