The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Jamaal Howard's request to stay his execution scheduled for October 7, 2026. The court also rejected his motion to allow a second habeas corpus petition to be considered. This ruling affects Howard, who was convicted of murder and claims he is mentally disabled under new clinical standards.
The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the strict deadlines and limitations surrounding habeas corpus applications, particularly for death row inmates. Howard's case highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to appeal their convictions or sentences, especially when new evidence or standards emerge after their initial applications.
Background
Jamaal Howard was convicted in 2001 for the murder of Vickie Swartout at a gas station in Silsbee, Texas. He was sentenced to death, and his conviction was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2004. Howard initially argued that his mental illness should exempt him from execution under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that individuals with intellectual disabilities cannot be executed. This decision opened the door for Howard to file a state habeas petition, which was ultimately denied. In 2012, he filed a federal habeas petition, but tests conducted in 2017 concluded that he did not have an intellectual disability. After the Supreme Court's ruling in Moore v. Texas in 2017, which criticized the application of outdated medical standards, Howard abandoned his Atkins claim.
After years of legal battles, Howard's execution was scheduled for October 2026. On September 28, 2026, he revived his abandoned Atkins claim and sought to have a second habeas corpus petition considered by the court. He argued that new clinical standards would classify him as mentally disabled, making him ineligible for execution.
The Ruling
The Fifth Circuit, composed of Judges Smith, Ho, and Duncan, ruled against Howard's motions. The court stated that his second habeas application was barred by the statute of limitations. The court noted, "Even if limitations proved no obstacle, Howard’s second petition makes a previously presented claim, foreclosing consideration in turn."
Furthermore, the court found that Howard did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his case. The judges emphasized that Howard's actions leading up to the filing of his motions did not show diligence, stating, "Howard acted with laches, weighing against equitable relief." The court ultimately denied both the motion for authorization and the motion for a stay of execution.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Howard and others in similar situations. It underscores the importance of adhering to strict timelines when filing habeas corpus petitions. The court's decision reinforces that even new clinical standards may not provide sufficient grounds for reconsideration if a claim has already been presented in a prior application.
For Howard, this ruling means that he will face execution without the opportunity for his new claims to be heard in court. The ruling also serves as a precedent for future cases involving death row inmates who may attempt to introduce new evidence or standards after their initial applications have been denied.
What's Next
Howard's case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is unclear if the Court will take up the case. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect Howard's situation.