Opinion ID: 2786325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Foster

Text: Dr. Foster testified during Clayton’s post-conviction proceedings that Clayton’s brain injury rendered him insane at the time he murdered Deputy Castetter and left him incompetent to stand trial. The motion court gave no weight to his opinion because it was conclusory and internally inconsistent. This Court affirmed on the same basis. Clayton II, 63 S.W.3d at 209. When Clayton was given an execution date in 2008, Dr. Foster again opined that Clayton was not competent to be executed. This time, he relied heavily on Dr. Preston’s report from 2005. In addition, Dr. Foster noted: Despite the approaching date of execution, he [Clayton] remains resolute that he is called to preach the gospel and will be released from prison by a miraculous act of God…. He continues to practice his gospel singing in preparation for his ministry once freed, rather than bothering with requests for clemency or extenuation. Concepts beyond him perceptually, not 19 intellectually. By now he fancies himself wrongly convicted, though does not have an alternative theory of the crime for which he is convicted. In November 2013, Dr. Foster “reassessed” Clayton. He concedes Clayton “seemed aware of his current prison status and the outcome of intervening years (his trial and conviction, the birth of his grandchildren, the death of his son, the loss of his property and estate in the payment to his Attorney at his trial, etc.).” However, Dr. Foster again opined that Clayton did not meet “the requirements of competency for purposes of the final appellate proceedings.” He stated: His [Clayton’s] dementia, medically substantiated and described now for 44 years, is of sufficient severity that, to paraphrase Dr. Preston from her Report of January 18, 2005, he lacks the capacity to communicate effectively with his counsel, to testify relevantly if called upon, and to make rational decisions regarding his habeas proceedings. I found the same problems in 2000 and testified to those findings in September of that year [in Clayton’s post-conviction proceedings]. His Dementia had progressed by the time I reassessed him in 2008, and his deterioration the past five years has further lessened his capacity for meaningful participation in his legal proceedings. Finally, Dr. Foster updated his report in January 2015. Again, he relies on and quotes from Dr. Preston’s report from January 2005. Though he mentions Clayton’s agerelated health problems that have occurred since being incarcerated (e.g., hearing loss, vision deficits, coronary artery disease resulting in a triple coronary bypass in 2001, hypertension, arthritic spine, hips, and knees, and a surgically repaired broken leg in 2013), Dr. Foster does not opine that any (or all) of these conditions are what make Clayton incompetent to be executed. Instead, that opinion is based on the 1972 head injury and its effects, which Dr. Foster says cause Clayton to exhibit “poor judgment, problem solving, mental flexibility, and verbal disinhibition[.]” He opines that Clayton is 20 “not simply incompetent legally, he would be unable to care for himself or manage basic self care, were he not in a structured environment …. [because even though he] can shower, groom, eat, walk, it is his comprehension, judgment, memory, limited intelligence and social deficits that plague him.” Dr. Foster’s opinions are not credible because the issue is not whether Clayton is competent in the sense of whether he can care for himself, or even whether Clayton suffers from deficits in comprehension, judgment, memory, or intelligence. The issue is whether Clayton can comprehend the reasons for his death sentence and its implications. Panetti, 551 U.S. at 957. Put another way, the issue is whether Clayton has a rational understanding of the punishment he is about to suffer and why he is to suffer it. Id. This is because the Eighth Amendment only prohibits Clayton’s execution if he suffers from gross delusions that impair his “concept of reality [such] that he cannot reach a rational understanding of the reason for the execution.” Id. at 958. Dr. Foster does not opine that Clayton suffers from the “gross delusions” of the sort described in Panetti. In fact, the only thing Dr. Foster says about Clayton’s understanding of his impending execution is in the penultimate paragraph of his 2015 letter in which Dr. Foster asserts: “I do not find him competent to appreciate the purpose of his pending execution as addressed in Panetti[.]” Dr. Foster does not attempt to substantiate this assertion, and it is not supported by the remainder of his January 2015 letter. 2 2 Regarding Dr. Foster’s reliance on Dr. Preston’s 2005 conclusions as to Clayton’s inability to assist his counsel, Dr. Foster fails to note that the District Court specifically rejected those conclusions and found them to be inconsistent with the remainder of Dr. Preston’s report. 21