The Tennessee Supreme Court has just ruled today in the case of Paul Dennis Reid. The court rejected the claims of Reid's attorneys that an inmate should be able to rationally consult with his attorneys. Apparently, the four justices who joined in the opinion, feel that it is perfectly alright to deny a next friend to someone who cannot rationally consult with his attorneys, or who, in the case of Paul Reid, cannot even remember past events properly due to his severe mental illness!

You can read the court's opinion here, but sit down first; it's a little shocking.

As usual, Supreme Court Justice Adolpho Birch dissented from the majority opinion with a reasoned and principled position. Justice Birch makes a number of clear and insightful points, one of which is that applying a standard of mental competency that is utilized for civil litigation is completely inappropriate when talking about literal life and death decisions. Birch makes a further excellent point in his dissent regarding the rules of pursuing state appeals. Since petitioners only get to go through the process once, to allow them to proceed with some claims while not others which require a competent petitioner to pursue (as the majority opinion suggests) would effectively close the door to reasonable claims! Apparently, this, like so many other calls for justice, went unheeded by the majority.