Henderson Co. DA responds to Randall Mays' stay of execution
HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS (KETK) — On Monday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals placed a stay on the March 18 execution of an East Texas man.
According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman Jason Clark, the execution of Randall Mays, 55, was halted after the court ruled additional review of his mental competency is needed. Mays was sentenced to death for killing two peace officers May 17, 2007. The convict barricaded himself in a Henderson County home after neighbors reported hearing gunfire. He then used a high-powered rifle to shoot at authorities and fatally shot Tony Ogburn. He also killed another deputy, Paul Habelt, and critically injured one other.
On Tuesday, the Henderson County District Attorney's Office released the following response to the stay of execution:
Yesterday’s order by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin (CCA) is disappointing for the family and friends of Paul, Tony and Kevin, as well as the entire law enforcement community.
In Texas and the United States, the law holds that it is unconstitutional to execute a person who does not know why they are to be executed and that the execution is imminent. We believe that Mays is fully competent and that the people of Henderson County, through the jury in this case, issued a clear message in its verdict.
Although the court in Austin issued a stay, they have not overturned Judge Tarrance's ruling from February 27th that held Mays had not raised substantial doubt of his competency to be executed.
In its order today, the CCA simply stated it needed more time to consider the arguments and briefs of the State and Mays's attorneys in Austin. One could certainly speculate that Mays's attorneys made the tactical decision to wait mere weeks before the scheduled execution in order to put the court against the wall with a tight timeline.
At this point the CCA can do one of two things: uphold Judge Tarrance's findings and ask him to set a new execution date, or reverse his findings and remand the case back to him.
If the latter happens, the court would appoint at least two independent experts to evaluate Mays for his competency to be executed. After the evaluations, another hearing would then be had and Judge Tarrance would have to rule again. And of course, the CCA would review that ruling.
I certainly believe and argued in our brief to the CCA that Judge Tarrance and not the judges in Austin, is in the best position to evaluate Mays's competency claims. Judge Tarrance was the trial judge and has handled this case fairly, correctly and efficiently for the past eight years. We certainly hope and advocate for the CCA to uphold his ruling and allow Judge Tarrance to set another execution date.
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/crimewat...mays-stay-of-e
Bookmarks