BLOUNTVILLE, Tenn. – Even before it begins, a 25-year-old murder case has landed before the Tennessee Supreme Court.
A public defender is seeking relief from the state’s highest court to quash the prosecution against a mentally retarded man charged with first-degree murder in the death of his cellmate in 1985 – a move that follows an appellate court’s refusal to stop the prosecution in February.
Willie Clyde Puckett was 23 years old when he was charged with the murder, and was involuntarily committed by the state. He was repeatedly found unfit to stand trial until January 2006, when a psychologist selected by the state evaluated Puckett and found him competent. Prosecutors presented their case to a grand jury in 2007 and secured an indictment.
Stephen Wallace, Sullivan County’s public defender, maintains that the state’s attempt to revive the prosecution against Puckett after his 25 years in mental health institutions violates his due process rights. Last spring, Wallace filed an interlocutory motion with the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals to stop the prosecution, but the court in February denied his motion.
The appellate court held that it could not review speedy trial claims before the case actually proceeds to trial, and stated that Puckett “may very well now be competent to stand trial as determined by the forensic evaluation conducted by the state’s expert.”
Last Friday, Wallace appealed to the state’s highest court to reverse the appellate court’s ruling, calling the case “an important constitutional issue that has never been addressed by the Tennessee Supreme Court.” The question he raises is whether the charges against Puckett have been pending for an unreasonably long time, and damaged his ability to put on a defense.
“The timeliness of prosecution in the case [. . .] has already been lost forever,” Wallace wrote in his brief. “It is fundamentally unfair to prosecute a mentally incompetent accused after 25 years.”
To support this point, Wallace notes that the psychologist who evaluated Puckett in 1985 and his first attorney are now deceased.
Regardless of the single evaluation in 2006 that found Puckett competent, Wallace argues, the reasonable amount of time to detain Puckett on criminal charges would have expired before then. Noting that the state made no move to bring Puckett to trial until late 2005, Wallace contends that prosecutors were only spurred to action when the state announced its plans to transfer Puckett into a community setting.
“The district attorney was content to leave the criminal charges pending as long as the accused was confined in a secure mental retardation facility,” Wallace wrote.
Barry Staubus, deputy district attorney, had not seen Wallace’s brief but clarified the state’s position in a telephone interview Thursday.
“What spawned our activity on the case was when I received information that there might be an issue of competency,” he said, referring to state reports about Puckett’s condition.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear Wallace’s motion or denies it, the case will be remanded to the Sullivan County Criminal Court, and the two sides will schedule a hearing to debate whether Puckett is fit for trial.
dgilbert@bristolnews.com | (276) 645-2558
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement