The Philip DeFranco Show - MS 12.11 Why You Should Care About Madison v. Alabama & What You Need To Know...

Episode Date: December 11, 2018

Latest episode of The Philip DeFranco Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, hello, welcome to your extra morning show. My name is Philip DeFranco, and this morning I wanted to talk about a very interesting Supreme Court case. And you may have never heard of this case, but it is Madison v. Alabama. Back in October, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Madison v. Alabama,

and at the center of that case, you had Vernon Madison, who was on death row in Alabama, and he's suing for his life. Which, before we get to the now, we should really talk about the initial crime. Back in 1985, Madison was arrested and charged with attempted murder of his estranged girlfriend, Cheryl Green, and of murdering police officer,

Julia Schulte. Reportedly, Schulte was at Green's residence to investigate a missing child report there, and then Madison arrived. And Madison, who was out on parole at the time, thought Schulte was there to arrest him, so he fled and then eventually returned with a pistol, and he shot Schulte twice in the back of the head,

which killed him instantly, and then he also fired into Green's back as well as she shielded her 11-year-old daughter, though luckily she ended up surviving her wounds. And after two missed trials, we fast forward to Madison being found guilty in 1994, and he is sentenced to death. And a big note here is he was sentenced to death

after a judge overruled a jury's recommendation that he be given life without parole. Now over the years, Madison has sued with a few different arguments in the past that have actually delayed his original execution date of 2016 And we'll hop around a little here. In 2017 Madison and his lawyer sued over a 2017 law change in Alabama That made it so the trial judges cannot override a jury sentence recommendation. Prior to that his lawyers argued that he was too incompetent to be executed So in basic terms there that means that he doesn't have the mental faculties to understand what he did or why he's being sentenced to death

And for this story, that's an important word to remember, incompetence. Now in October of 2017, the Supreme Court actually decided against his incompetency argument, saying the state court did not unreasonably apply to prior decisions when it determined that Madison is competent to be executed because, notwithstanding his memory loss, he recognizes that he will be put to death as punishment for the murder he was found to have committed. And with this decision, his execution was rescheduled for January, 2018. But then the Supreme Court reversed course just before his execution and decided to hear his lawyer's incompetency argument. So once again, his sentence was commuted

while they heard arguments. And so this is where we get into some of the specifics and the arguments. Madison's Supreme Court arguments stem from two strokes that he suffered while in prison that allegedly left him with a vascular dementia. And his lawyers argue that he can't remember basic things because of the dementia,

like the alphabet past the letter G. No one disputes the severity of his mental and physical decline his disabilities. He's legally blind now. He can't Speak without slurring his speech. She's incontinent He can't walk without assistance everyone including the trial court observed that he is a very severely ill person And so this whole case really and it's also why I'm interested in talking about it today, it's around two main questions about the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishments. One, does the Eighth Amendment prohibit a state

from executing a prisoner whose mental disability leaves them with no memory of the crime? And two, does the Eighth Amendment prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from severe cognitive dysfunction to the point that they don't remember or understand the circumstances of their execution? And to understand the arguments that follow, I think it's important to listen to an exchange

between Justice Ginsburg and Bryan Stevenson, Madison's lawyer, talking about memory loss plus. Memory loss with something else can render someone incompetent, and that something else may not be dementia. That is someone who has a brain injury and is now impaired in a way where they have no memory of anything, it's not vascular dementia, could also be incompetent to be executed. Someone who is actually in a coma. That's right. You say it must be memory loss plus, and what would the plus be?

Well, the examples that come to mind would be the kind of brain damage that is a result of an injury where the brain is injured and incapable of actually producing memories or creating the kind of rational understanding that this court has required. A second example would be something like a coma. We would argue that someone who is in a coma is not competent to be executed because their state of mind would not be reconcilable to what this court has held in Ford and Panetti. Mr. Stephenson. And the case that he mentions there at the end is important.

The Supreme Court has actually answered these questions in the past, albeit under different circumstances. And two main cases come to mind. You have Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman. Ford was a case that affirmed common law practices that the insane can't be executed. And Panetti was a 2007 case that ruled that someone can't be executed if they don't understand

why they're being executed and can't function in society otherwise because of a qualifying mental condition. Panetti, in this case, was a schizophrenic. And both men, in both their cases, they were considered incompetent by the court. And pertaining to the situation we're talking about today, it also allowed that if a court had already sentenced someone to death, they were later allowed to appeal the sentence to determine in court if they were actually competent. But a big thing of note here is Madison's case is different from Ford's and Panetti's because he was competent when he committed the crime, he was competent when he went to prison, and he only became incompetent after his strokes. Additionally, both Ford and Panetti were considered insane,

which for many of the justices was a problem. The decision we're now reviewing said, the Supreme Court said, must be insane. This man is insane, end of case. However, his lawyers argue that his dementia qualifies him to meet the same standards set down by the Panetti case, i.e. that he should be allowed to appeal his sentence after being found incompetent by a court.

And his lawyers argue that Madison's incompetence is obvious and clear. Mr. Madison can't tell you the season of the year. He can't tell you the month of the year. He can't tell you the day of the week. He can't recite the alphabet past G. Additionally, he argues that Madison has major memory issues.

For example, he knows that he has a toilet in his jail cell, but when in bed, he urinates himself after asking the guards for someone to take him to the restroom, because he can't remember that there is a toilet in the jail cell. However, on the other side, the state has tried to argue that while Madison

may have vascular dementia, scientific evidence of that doesn't mean that he isn't rational. MRIs can help diagnose vascular dementia. We've never disputed whether he has vascular dementia or not. But MRIs can't help determine whether someone has a rational understanding. That's something that is inherently going to come from talking with a particular inmate, and particularly in this case where the dispositive fact that Mr. Madison is relying on is that he can't remember the crime. That's inherently something that only comes from the defendant. And when he would have to admit that, whether to a psychologist or in testimony,

and that can't be the rule because if that was the case, no inmate would ever admit to committing the crime if that meant that he were incompetent. But Madison's lawyers argue that he doesn't act like a competent person. Rather, he's more like a parrot. And so while the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments, they have not decided yet, they won't for a while. But I wanted to talk about it today because one, I think it's interesting,

and two, I'd love to know your thoughts. Do you believe that Madison should still be put to death, or do you think it would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment? If you would deem him to be incompetent, but it only happened after he was sentenced, does that change anything, or should he be treated just like the person he was before the strokes?

And in a way, it ends up being a question about identity and self. Is that the same person or is it just the same carrying case if we really simplified it? And as far as that argument goes, I'm personally of the mindset of that is still the same person. His current state, his current condition,

if you want to call it incompetence, that did not play a factor when he murdered a police officer in cold blood. But that said, like with every video that we put out, that is the story, that is my personal opinion, and then I pass the question off to you. But ultimately, that's where this extra morning video ends for us today. Remember, if you're liking these extra Tuesday, Thursday morning videos for the month of December until Christmas, let myself and the team know by hitting that like button. That's the way you can let us know. Also, if you're new here, you want more. Five videos a week plus these morning videos. Ooh, all you got to do is just hit that subscribe

button, maybe even ring that bell. But with all that said, I just want to say thank you for watching. I love your face. And I'll see you actually later today with today's brand new Philip DeFranco show.