pro bono

In 1992 Scott Louis Panetti broke into the home of his estranged wife's parents in Texas, shot and killed both of them in front of his wife and daughter, and held his wife and daughter hostage overnight before surrendering to police. Tried for capital murder in 1995, Panetti sought to represent himself. A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation revealed a fragmented personality, delusions, and hallucinations, and noted multiple prior hospitalizations for these disorders. He was found competent to stand trial and to waive counsel. At trial he claimed insanity and engaged in bizarre and trance-like behavior before the jury. Less than two months after sentencing the trial court found him incompetent to waive appointment of state habeas counsel. The Texas courts denied relief on direct appeal and state habeas. The federal district court and Fifth Circuit rejected Panetti's first federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and this Court denied certiorari. On October 31, 2003 the state trial court set an execution date of February 5, 2004. Panetti then filed his first motion under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46.05 claiming, for the first time, that mental illness rendered him incompetent to be executed. The trial judge denied the motion without a hearing, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Panetti filed a second federal habeas petition. The district court stayed execution to permit the state trial court to consider evidence of his current mental state. The state court ordered two mental-health experts to examine Panetti. Their April 28, 2004 report concluded he knew he was to be executed and understood the reason. Without holding a hearing or ruling on Panetti's ten pending motions—including requests for a competency hearing, funds for his own expert, and transcription—the state judge found him competent on May 26, 2004 and closed the case. Panetti returned to federal court. The district court concluded the state proceedings failed to comply with Texas law and were constitutionally inadequate under Ford v. Wainwright. It reviewed the incompetency claim without deference to the state finding but denied relief because Panetti had not shown he met the Fifth Circuit's competency standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari.

In June 2003 a South Carolina family court entered an order requiring petitioner Michael Turner to pay respondent Rebecca Rogers $51.73 per week to help support their child. Rogers' father Larry Price currently has custody of the child and is also a respondent before this Court. Over the next three years Turner repeatedly failed to pay the amount due and was held in contempt on five occasions. The first four times he was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment but ultimately paid what he owed. He paid twice without being jailed and twice after spending a few days in custody. The fifth time he did not pay but completed a six-month sentence. After his release Turner remained in arrears. On March 27, 2006 the family court clerk issued a new show cause order because Turner was $5,728.76 behind. Following an initial postponement due to Turner's failure to appear, his civil contempt hearing took place on January 3, 2008. Turner and Rogers were both present without representation by counsel. The court clerk stated the arrearage amount. The judge asked Turner if there was anything he wanted to say. Turner described getting back on drugs after release, breaking his back in September, filing for disability and SSI benefits, and hoping for another chance. The judge then asked Rogers if she had anything to say. The judge found Turner in willful contempt and sentenced him to twelve months in the Oconee County Detention Center. Turner could purge the contempt by reaching a zero balance. The judge completed a prewritten Order for Contempt of Court form but left blank the statement indicating whether Turner was gainfully employed and had the ability to make support payments when due. Turner served the full sentence. While serving the sentence Turner appealed with pro bono counsel claiming a federal constitutional right to counsel at the contempt hearing. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the claim after Turner completed his sentence. Turner sought certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted review. Within months of his release from the twelve-month imprisonment Turner was again the subject of civil contempt proceedings. He had arrears of $13,814.72 as of December 2010. Another hearing was scheduled for May 2011.