Georgia Set to Execute Mentally Disabled Man Whose Lawyer was Drinking Heavily Throughout His Trial

Tonight at 7 p.m. EST, Georgia is scheduled to execute Robert
Wayne Holsey, a man whose I.Q. is around 70 and whose lawyer
admitted was drinking heavily throughout his trial.

In 1996, Holsey robbed a convenience store, then shot and killed
a pursuing police officer. He was convicted of armed robbery and
murder and sentenced to death in 1997.

His attorney, Andy Prince, later
testified that during Holsey’s trial, he would go back to his
hotel room in the evenings and drink until he “couldn’t drink
anymore.” According to Prince, he was consuming roughly a quart of
vodka every night—the equivalent of 21 shots. “What I considered
doing fine at the time was just barely getting by. I shouldn’t have
been representing anybody in that case,” Prince has said.

Prince later
voluntarily forfeited his law license and was sentenced to
serve three years in prison for stealing over $100,000 from one of
his clients.

Eventually, a Georgia Superior Court judge would rule that
Holsey’s lawyer failed to present mitigating evidence that may have
led to a different outcome, including facts about Holsey’s
intellectual disability and his violent family history. Georgia
requires a unanimous jury vote to impose the death penalty; if this
evidence had been presented, perhaps one or more jurors may have
voted otherwise. The judge
vacated Holsey’s death sentence and ordered him to be
resentenced.

However, the Georgia Supreme Court
reversed that decision and ruled Holsey had failed to show that
the outcome would have been different if his lawyer had presented
this additional evidence. In 2012, a federal appeals court ruled
Holsey had not proved the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was
“unreasonable.”

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court barred the
execution of inmates with mental disabilities, but left the
states to determine who qualifies as mentally sound. This year, the
United States Supreme Court invalidated a
Florida statute that allowed inmates with an I.Q. of 71 or
higher to be executed. In their Hall v. Florida ruling,
the court argued Florida’s rigid cutoff excluded the state from
considering other evidence that may prove an inmate’s
disability.

Lawyers for Holsey argue his I.Q. is around 70, and say he never
rose above a fourth grade level of intellectual functioning. His
prison records, they argue, further document his mental
disability.

But in Georgia, state law requires Holsey to prove he’s mentally
disabled “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s the strictest standard
in the nation and extremely difficult to meet. Holsey filed an
appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court that argued Georgia’s
standard is unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s
ruling in Hall v. Florida. This afternoon, however, the
Georgia Supreme Court
denied that appeal along with a motion for a stay of execution,
thus clearing the way for Holsey to be executed this evening unless
the United States Supreme Court intervenes.

All inmates should have the right to be represented by lawyers
not completely inebriated during trial. Even those who support the
death penalty should be able to concede that allowing a mentally
disabled man to be executed is a barbaric act that flies in the
face of justice.