The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request from Jamaal Howard, a convicted murderer, to stay his execution scheduled for October 7, 2026. The court also rejected Howard's motion to allow a second habeas corpus petition that argues he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.
This ruling affects Howard, who has been on death row since his conviction for murder in 2001. It highlights the complex legal issues surrounding capital punishment and mental health, particularly as new clinical standards emerge in the field.
Jamaal Howard was convicted of murdering Vickie Swartout at a gas station in Silsbee, Texas, in May 2000. After his conviction, he appealed, arguing that his mental illness should exempt him from the death penalty. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his conviction and death sentence. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing intellectually disabled individuals violates the Eighth Amendment. Despite this, Howard's claims were not accepted by the courts.
In 2012, Howard filed a federal habeas petition, which included an Atkins claim. However, after a psychological evaluation in 2017 concluded he did not have an intellectual disability, he abandoned that claim. The district court subsequently denied his remaining claims in 2019, and Howard's request for a Certificate of Appealability was also denied by the Fifth Circuit in 2020.
As Howard's execution date approached, he attempted to revive his Atkins claim by filing a new habeas application in state court on September 28, 2026, just days before his scheduled execution. He then sought the Fifth Circuit's authorization to consider this second application, arguing that new clinical standards would classify him as mentally disabled, thus making him ineligible for execution.
The court ruled against Howard, stating that his second habeas application was barred by the statute of limitations. The judges noted that Howard had not acted diligently in pursuing his rights and had failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances that would justify equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The court stated, "Howard was not diligent with his rights, and there was no 'extraordinary circumstance that stood in his way and prevented timely filing.'"
Additionally, the court found that Howard's second application presented claims that had already been raised in his previous petitions. The judges emphasized that even if the statute of limitations did not apply, Howard's claim was still barred because he had previously presented an Atkins claim in his earlier habeas application.
The ruling was delivered by a panel of judges: Smith, Ho, and Duncan. They concluded that Howard's request for a stay of execution was also denied because he had no likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. The court stated, "Howard has no likelihood of success on the merits. The balance of the equities militates against a stay. And the mere speculative possibility of the Supreme Court’s holding to the contrary proves insufficient to warrant a stay."
This decision has significant implications for Howard and others in similar situations. It underscores the challenges faced by death row inmates attempting to use new clinical standards to argue against their execution. The ruling also reflects the court's commitment to uphold procedural rules regarding the timing of habeas applications.
Going forward, Howard's options for appeal appear limited. The court's ruling effectively closes the door on his current claims, and while he could potentially seek further review from the U.S. Supreme Court, the likelihood of success seems slim based on the Fifth Circuit's findings.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or additional motions Howard may pursue in the future.