Court Opinion

ID: 9498734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:26:34.911506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:02.364505
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
In the face of substantial evidence that Percy Levar Walton does not understand that his execution will mean his death, defined as the end of his physical life, the majority opinion and Judge Williams’ concurrence take the position that an individual may be found competent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986), without such an understanding.1 Notably *183absent from the majority opinion is any explanation for this holding other than “Ford doesn’t say it.” With respect to the purely legal question of what the Eighth Amendment requires for competency to be executed, I would hold that an individual’s understanding of the fact of execution must include at least a rudimentary comprehension that execution will mean his death, defined as the end of his physical life.
There is nothing new about my position. There is no dispute that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of capital punishment unless the inmate understands that he is going to be executed and that to be executed means to die. See ante, at 174 - 175. Contrary to what my colleagues assert, this is not a rewriting of Ford. It is a simple recognition that the constitutional question (“Do you understand that your execution will cause you to die?”) cannot be meaningfully answered unless the condemned understands what “to die” means. In the ordinary case, an inmate who understands what execution and dying mean will also understand that execution will mean the end of his physical life. But there are no doubt some who, by reason of mental illness or defect, do not understand this despite being able to utter the proper incantation when prompted. When the record raises a legitimate question as to whether a condemned inmate understands what “to die” means, the district court is obliged to resolve that issue. This is precisely such a case, and the effect of today’s holding is to permit the execution of a person who may be unaware that his physical life is going to end.
The majority opinion additionally states that even if such an understanding is required, “the record contains ample evidence ... establishing that Walton understands that his execution will mean the end of his physical life.” Ante, at 175 n. 17. I do not dispute that there is evidence in this record that may support such a finding, just as the majority opinion does not dispute that there is ample evidence to support a contrary finding. (For example, the record indicates that Walton can recite, after prompting, that he is to be executed for murder. However, Walton has also stated that his execution will allow him to “have a telephone, a motorcycle, and a job at Burger King.” J.A. 367 (internal quotation marks omitted).) This is not the point. The point is that the district court has never assessed the evidence as it relates to the specific question of whether Walton understands that his execution will mean the end of his physical life.
Because the Constitution, as a legal matter, requires that a condemned inmate understand that execution will result in the end of his physical life, and because there has never been a factual finding regarding whether this standard is met here, the Eighth Amendment demands that we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for reconsideration of Walton’s competence to be executed. A society that has unequivocally rejected the execution of the insane as “savage and inhuman,” Ford, 477 U.S. at 406, 106 S.Ct. 2595, can accept no less.2 I therefore dissent.
*184I.
There is no dispute here that Walton was properly convicted and sentenced to death for three brutal murders. Similarly, there is no dispute that since his sentencing, Walton has fallen deeper and deeper into mental illness. The issue before the en banc court concerns only the questions that must be answered by a court faced with the task of determining whether Walton is competent to be executed. While the majority and I agree that the test for competency under the Eighth Amendment is whether an individual understands that he is to be executed and why,3 I would hold that an individual’s understanding of the fact of execution must include the understanding that execution will mean his death, defined as the end of his physical life.
A.
That a prisoner’s awareness of his upcoming execution should include such a fundamental understanding is clear, first, from the manner in which the members of the Ford Court stated the constitutional prohibition on the execution of the insane. The plurality recognized society’s abhorrence of inflicting the death penalty on one whose mental illness prevents him from “comprehending” the “implications” of his punishment., Ford, 477 U.S. at 417, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (plurality opinion). There can be no doubt that the first and foremost “implication” of execution — and, in my view, the only one relevant to competency to be executed — is the prisoner’s death.
Justice Powell, in concurrence, stated the constitutional rule as follows:
If the defendant perceives the connection between his crime and his punishment, the retributive goal of the criminal law is satisfied. And only if the defendant is aware that his death is approaching can he prepare himself for his passing. Accordingly, I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it.
Id. at 422, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Justice Powell’s meaning in this passage is clear: the retributive goal of capital punishment is satisfied only if the prisoner understands that his execution will end his physical life. Accord Martin v. Dugger, 686 F.Supp. 1523, 1569 (S.D.Fla.1988) (“An essential part of the punishment society imposes on a defendant is to make the defendant realize and live with the concept that he will die for what he did.... Accordingly, if retribution is to be served by the death of a condemned prisoner, the prisoner must at least have this realization.”).
Similar language, indicating an appreciation that a prisoner’s awareness of his execution must include the understanding that execution means the end of his physical life, is found in numerous federal and state court decisions before and after *185Ford. See, e.g., Scott v. Mitchell, 250 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that competency is appropriately defined as “the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and why it was imposed upon the convict” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)); Barnard v. Collins, 13 F.3d 871, 876-77 (5th Cir.1994) (denying certificate of probable cause based on state court finding that petitioner “comprehend[ed] the nature ... of his execution ” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1018 (D.Ariz.2001) (noting that Arizona defines competency to be executed in terms of the prisoner’s awareness that the punishment for murder is death); State v. Perry, 502 So.2d 543, 564 (La.1986) (holding that Louisiana will not execute an individual who “lacks the capacity to understand the death penalty”); Billiot v. State, 655 So.2d 1, 15-16 (Miss.1995) (holding that to be competent under Ford, a prisoner must “have a rational understanding of what it means to be executed”); Grammer v. Fenton (In re Grammer), 104 Neb.744, 178 N.W.624, 626 (1920) (holding that demonstrating incompetence to be executed requires a showing that the petitioner “does not understand, and is incapable of understanding, ... his impending fate ” (emphasis added)); State v. Scott, 92 Ohio St.3d 1, 748 N.E.2d 11, 13 (2001) (per curiam) (observing that Ohio defines competency under Ford as “the mental capacity to understand the nattire of the death penalty and why it was imposed upon the convict” (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)); Bingham v. State, 82 Okla.Crim. 305,169 P.2d 311, 315 (1946) (stating that purpose of competency examination prior to execution is to determine “whether it would be consistent with public decency and propriety to take away the life of a person who was not sane enough to realize what was being done ” (emphasis added)); Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 539 Pa. 371, 652 A.2d 821, 823-24 (1995) (affirming lower court conclusion that the petitioner was competent to be executed because, inter alia, his mental illness did not preclude him from understanding the “implications” of the death penalty); see also Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 20 n. 3, 70 S.Ct. 457, 94 L.Ed. 604 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (stating that “[a]fter sentence of death, the test of insanity is whether the prisoner” can “understand,” inter alia, “the impending fate which awaits him” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Indeed, the prisoner’s ability vel non to comprehend that execution means the end of his physical life was the deciding factor in two post-Ford competency cases. In Singleton v. State, 313 S.C. 75, 437 S.E.2d 53, 58 (1993), the court concluded that the petitioner, Singleton, was incompetent to be executed because he did not understand “the nature of the punishment”:
Singleton is completely unaware that he is capable of dying in the electric chair. His reliance on protective “genes” and his inability to respond to his counsel’s questions with anything other than a yes-no are indicative of Singleton’s failure to understand either the reason or the nature of his punishment.
Accord Musselwhite v. State, 215 Miss. 363; 60 So.2d 807, 809 (1952) (holding that petitioner was incompetent to be executed because his catatonic schizophrenia rendered him unable to “take account of [the] significance” of being “taken to the electric chair”). In contrast, the Fifth Circuit in Garrett v. Collins, 951 F.2d 57, 58-59 (5th Cir.1992) (per curiam), concluded that the petitioner was competent to be executed even though he believed that his deceased aunt would protect him from the toxic effects of the chemicals used during lethal injection. The court reasoned that the *186petitioner “comprehend[ed] the nature of the penalty,” id. at 59 (internal quotation marks omitted), because although he believed he would not die, he recognized that the purpose of the execution was to end his life.
The majority opinion contends that these cases stand only for the “unremarkable proposition ... that the condemned inmate must understand that he will die as punishment for his crimes.” Ante, at 175. Judge Williams’ concurrence makes the same claim. I cannot agree. The language of these cases makes it abundantly clear that the test for competency simply is not so narrow. Moreover, neither the majority opinion nor Judge Williams’ concurrence can seriously dispute that the courts in Singleton and Garrett examined precisely the question at issue here— whether the inmate must understand that execution will mean the end of his physical life — in deciding competency.
Indeed, today’s holding is “consistent with Garrett,” ante, at 175 n. 18, only insofar as the majority opinion, like the court in Garrett, would affirm the finding of competence. Otherwise, the majority opinion fails to appreciate the significance of the analysis and decision in that case. In finding Garrett competent even though he believed that he would not die, the Fifth Circuit explicitly rejected counsel’s contention that Garrett was incompetent because he was not “fully aware of the consequences of the death penalty.” Garrett, 951 F.2d at 58. Importantly, the court concluded that Garrett was competent because he actually understood that his execution could cause him to “suffer death.” id. at 59 (internal quotation marks omitted). Garrett thus addressed precisely the question that has never been addressed by the district court in this case.
The rarity of the particular circumstances of this case — in which the inmate is able to state that he is to be executed, but may not understand that to be executed means the end of his physical life— provides no basis for the conclusion of the majority opinion that the existence of such an understanding is not a critical component of competency to be executed.
Judge Williams’ concurrence asserts that any inquiry into whether a condemned inmate understands that death means the end of physical life is improper because it is not mandated by the states through legislation. I would not have thought, however, that it would occur to the states to legislate something as obvious as prohibiting an execution when an inmate is so insane that he cannot comprehend the meaning-of the statement “I am going to die.” Surely, even the absence of legislation would not force this court to allow the execution of an individual who believed that “to die” meant “to go get an ice cream cone.” Moreover, while objective evidence in the form of legislation is certainly relevant in identifying prevailing Eighth Amendment standards, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that in the final analysis, the federal courts must render their own judgment regarding constitutional limitations on execution. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312-13, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).
In short, I would hold that, implicit in the rule that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of one who does not understand that he is to be executed, is the corresponding requirement that the condemned prisoner must understand that to be executed means to have one’s physical life ended.
B.
Judge Williams’ concurring opinion criticizes my framing of the necessary Eighth Amendment inquiry as “purely scientific.” Ante, at 180. However, the inquiry is *187phrased in “scientific” terms because the Eighth Amendment is concerned only with the inmate’s ability to understand the physical reality of what will happen to him during execution. Execution is a punishment wrought upon the body; in executing a condemned inmate, the state is concerned solely with bringing about physical death, not with inflicting any punishment that may carry over into the afterlife. One who believes that the end of his physical life is not cause for concern, for whatever reason, may not fear death — indeed, he may even welcome it — and this would be no concern of the Eighth Amendment. An inmate is not incompetent to be executed simply because he “understand[s] death” in other than wholly physical terms, ante, at 180. What the Eighth Amendment is concerned with is a condemned inmate’s ability to grasp the concept that execution will cause his heart to stop beating and his brain activity to cease.
The insistence of the concurrence that “the dissent’s test requires an inquiry into condemned inmates’ religious, poetic, or metaphysical views of death and the afterlife,” ante, at 181, rests on its conflation of the understanding of the physical reality of death (what the Eighth Amendment requires) with the fact that many people attach to death a meaning that goes beyond the mere cessation of the heartbeat. The two are different questions — as is evident from the concurrence’s own discussion, which is concerned solely with what different groups (if a fictional character who is admittedly dead can be considered a “group”) believe about events after “the end of this physical life,” ante, at 188, and the latter is entirely beside the point. It should be crystal clear that this ease is not about the orientation of Walton’s Weltan-shatmng; it is not about anyone’s religious or philosophical views about the afterlife or absence thereof; it is not about the “meaning of death” at all. It is about whether Walton understands that his execution will mean the end of his physical life (or, if the concurrence would prefer, this physical life), regardless of whether he can or does ascribe any meaning to that event.
Further, Judge Williams’ concurrence maintains that my view that Walton may not understand that his execution will result in his physical death is based on Walton’s view of the afterlife. In support of this contention, the concurrence relies on my citation to several passages in the record indicating that Walton believes that his physical life will continue after his execution. See ante, at 181. However, I cite these passages not as evidence of Walton’s religious or metaphysical views regarding the meaning of his death, but rather as evidence that Walton may view death as merely a brief interruption of his current physical life. In other words, these passages indicate that Walton may not understand that death is an end to his physical life. The district court may determine that the concurrence’s view of these passages is correct, and that Walton’s statements reflect his metaphysical ideas about life after death. But, these statements are also reasonably susceptible to the inference that Walton does not understand the physical reality of death. We, as an appellate court, are not in a position to resolve this factual question; this is precisely why remand is required.
II.
In my view, the evidence in the record presents a substantial question (one yet to be answered by the district court) as to whether Walton understands that his execution will mean his death, ie., the end of his physical life. The existence of a substantial question is a sufficient basis for a remand to the district court for factual findings concerning this particular ques*188tion. See Coe v. Bell, 209 F.3d 815, 821 (6th Cir.2000). To hold otherwise is to send Walton to his execution even though he may be too mentally ill to comprehend what is happening.
Psychiatrist Patricia General, who examined Walton on two occasions in April and May 2003, concluded that Walton was “floridly psychotic” and “had no insight into what was going on around him.” J.A. 304-05 (internal quotation marks omitted). Dr. General further noted that Walton did not “seem to be concerned with his upcoming execution date.” Id. at 307. During the May meeting, Walton had stated that he was going to be executed. Dr. General testified:
I presume that what I had asked him about was, was he aware that he was going to be executed, and he said he was going to be executed. I further asked him if he knows what that means? And he replied, “No. ” So I further explained that it meant that he would be put to death, and he said, “Yes.” And ... when I asked him if he knew why he would be put to death, ... he said ... some people had told him ... that he had killed some people.
Id. at 311-12 (emphasis added).4 On cross examination, Dr. General responded to the question “is it your impression that [Walton] understood that he would be put to death?” by saying, “Yes, after further questioning” and that “[w]ith the questions” Walton “understood he would be put to death.” Id. at 344. On redirect, Dr. General agreed with Walton’s counsel that Walton did not understand what execution meant until she explained it to him.
Dr. General’s testimony that Walton had to have the meaning of the term “execution” explained to him is consistent with the observations of psychiatrist Anand Pandurangi, who testified that Walton’s understanding of the proceedings concerning his upcoming execution was extremely limited. Regarding Walton’s present cognitive ability, Dr. Pandurangi said that Walton could not understand the nature of the Ford hearing, “with the caveat [that] you can teach him that.... [Y]ou can hammer it in ... for a short period. Now, 15 minutes later, it’s gone.” Id. at 380. Dr. Pandurangi stated that Walton could not comprehend the fact that execution would mean his death “[i]n any sustained sort of way.” Id. at 381; see id. at 422, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (“[H]e’s not able to understand this, or keep it in his mind in any sustained way over some period of time, including ... only 90 minutes.”). Similarly, at the March 2004 Ford hearing, Dr. Pandurangi estimated that Walton had the understanding of a six or eight-year-old but that he was capable of a brief factual understanding of execution: “[I]f you give it to him or if you press it, he can register, and for that moment, fleeting, he can hold it. If I tell him, You’ve been given the death sentence,’ he will say, ‘The death sentence.’ He registers it.... But when it comes to the implications of that, any further discussion of it, there I don’t think he understands that.” Id. at 975-76. Dr. Pandu-rangi concluded, “I would say [Walton] does not have the ability to prepare himself in any meaningful [way].... [He’s] not thinking of death and preparation for death that way. He seems to be thinking like he can ride a motorcycle, or somebody will come see him....” Id. at 978.
Dr. Pandurangi also testified regarding Walton’s conception of death. Among other things, Dr. Pandurangi noted that as far *189back as 1997, Walton insisted that he wanted “to plead guilty and get the [electric] chair” so that he could “come back to life and be with his honeys.” Id. at 410, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on his discussions with Walton, who “indicated that by getting the chair, he would be a man,” Dr. Pandurangi opined that Walton “thinks that somehow electrocution is ... going to make him more powerful or make him come back to life or something stronger.” Id. at 411, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (internal quotation marks omitted). During his interview with Dr. Pandurangi, Walton indicated that he might have “special powers” that would allow him to come back to life after execution, although he was not unalterably fixed on this idea. Id. at 365 (internal quotation marks omitted). And, Dr. Pandurangi testified that Walton had “some delusional type of thinking in his mind” regarding death, in that he simultaneously acknowledged the imminence of the death penalty while nevertheless stating that he wanted to “look good ... [i]n the shopping mall” and thought that he could have a telephone, a motorcycle, and a job at Burger King. Id. at 366-67 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to Dr. Pandu-rangi, Walton thought “both things are possible at the same time,” leading Dr. Pandurangi to conclude that Walton viewed death as “a very temporary thing.” Id. at 366.
At the March 2004 Ford hearing, Dr. Pandurangi testified regarding his recent observations of Walton. At that time, Dr. Pandurangi found that Walton could not consistently state why he was in prison (e.g., “[Walton] did say, ‘They found me guilty, three people.’ And then he sort of added quickly, T don’t know guilty or not.’ ” Id. at 961). Walton was unable to explain what execution was or what happened at death, other than to say “Sleep for rest of life ... until some-one comes to see you.” Id. at 964 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The testimony of Dr. Ruben Gur, who examined Walton in July 1999 and again on May 5 and 6, 2003, also indicates that Walton may not understand that execution means the end of his physical life:
[W]hen I asked [Walton] whether he could tell me where he stands now ... his impression was that he’s about to have his hearing, that there have been allegations that he’s killed some people
I told him, “Well, that’s not what Pm told. My understanding is that you had the trial and that you were convicted, and that you were sentenced to death.” And that’s when he gives you, “I don’t know. I don’t even know.”
I tried to push further on both visits and explain to him in as graphic terms as I could what it meant, and I asked him if he could repeat after me, and he said, “Yes.” And I asked him to do that, and he said, “I’m going to be executed.” And I said, “That’s right. And do you understand what happens when you get executed?”
And he said, “I don’t know.”
I said, “Well, you die.”
He says, “Yes, I die.”
“Do you understand what it means that you die?”
And he says, ‘Yes.”
And I said, “Well, what does it mean?” He says, “It means you’re dead.”
I said, “That’s right.... What’s going to happen then?”
And he said, “After execution, I’m going to get a Burger King.”
J.A. 440-41. Dr. Gur further testified that while Walton could state his execution date *190as May 23, 2003, he did not know what year it actually was. Dr. Gur also stated that Walton cannot comprehend “the ramifications of what may occur if he’s executed”: “I think you could explain it to him and he will be able to parrot statements that you feed him, but you come back ten minutes later and see that there isn’t much left out of all that effort.” Id. at 455-56. And, while Dr. Gur acknowledged that Walton “understands that ... he will die,” he questioned whether Walton “understands death,” noting that his primary concern was that he could “come back as a woman.” Id. at 459.
Walton’s testimony during the July 2003 Ford hearing also indicates that Walton may not understand that his execution will result in his physical death. For example, Walton answered “I don’t know. I don’t even know” when asked what his execution date meant, and “I don’t think so” when asked “If you have an execution date, does that mean that you have been sentenced to death?” Id. at 506-07. Walton was also unable to say what would happen to him “[i]f your sentence of death was going to be carried out, if you were going to be executed.” Id. at 507. When asked “If you were executed, could you come back to earth? Could you be back in prison? Could you be out?” Walton responded, “I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know how the procedure goes.... I don’t know if I could be back in prison or not.” Id. at 509. Nor could Walton state why he had been sentenced to death. After hearing Walton’s testimony on direct examination, the district court stated, “[0]bviously if the Court credits his testimony, he’s not competent.” Id. at 512. Despite this statement, the district court did not discuss Walton’s credibility in its decision finding Walton competent to be executed.
To be sure, some of Walton’s testimony indicated that he may understand that his execution will mean his death. For example, Walton stated that during lethal injection “they stick a needle in your arm or something,” and he then agreed with the State’s suggestion that “[y]ou die” at that point. Id. at 522-23. However, during this same cross-examination Walton was unable to answer questions about what electrocution is, responding “I don’t know” or “I don’t even know.” Id. at 523-24.
The expert appointed by the court, psychiatrist Mark Mills, was directed to examine Walton regarding “(1) whether Walton understands that he is to be punished by execution; and (2) whether Walton understands why he is being punished.” Id. at 869; the district court specifically restricted Dr. Mills to these questions only. Based on his examination of Walton, Dr. Mills answered “yes” to both of those questions. Id. at 897-99. Walton told Dr. Mills that it did not matter how he was executed (electrocution or lethal injection); when Dr. Mills asked why, “He said something like it’s an end, or it’s the end.” Id. at 899. Dr. Mills described Walton’s understanding of death as “simple, maybe even childlike. I believe that there’s enough there that he understands things are going to be very different than they are now.” Id. at 902. Dr. Mills ultimately concluded that “the standard for execution is sufficiently low that, sadly, Mr. Walton meets that standard. He knows enough to meet the judge’s questions to him.” Id. (emphasis added). Dr. Mills acknowledged, however, that Walton had previously been unable to articulate his understanding of execution and noted, “I think I may have caught him on a good day.” Id. at 947-48. Dr. Mills also stated that he might have “pushed” more on some questions if he had had the reports of other doctors at the time of his examination. Id. at 924. Ultimately, the most Dr. Mills could say was that Walton appeared to meet the criteria articulated by the district court on the day that Dr. Mills examined him. In short, Dr. Mills’ assessment of Walton’s competency does not present the *191unequivocal certainty that the majority opinion claims for it..
In my view, the conflicting evidence before the district court regarding Walton’s ability to understand that his execution will result in the end of his physical life obliged the court to consider that question specifically in ruling on Walton’s competency to be executed. The court did not do so, however. The opinion of the district court reveals that it only considered the narrow question of whether Walton knew that he was to be punished by execution for the murders of three people. Although the court noted Dr. Mills’ testimony that “Walton recognized that his execution was ‘the end’ or ‘an end,’ ” Walton v. Johnson, 306 F.Supp.2d 597, 601 (E.D.Va.2004), the court did not specifically inquire into whether the “end” to which Walton referred was the end of his physical life. Given the substantial conflict in the evidence regarding whether Walton understands that his execution will mean his death, I believe it was incumbent upon the district court to make specific finding on this question.
I would not at this point hold that Walton is actually incompetent under Ford. My concern, rather, is with the narrowness of the inquiry made by the district court and the substantial possibility that Walton does not know that his execution will mean the end of his physical life. I respectfully dissent.5
Judges MICHAEL, MOTZ, TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY join in this dissenting opinion.

. Judge Williams’ concurrence suggests that I wish to "prevent Virginia from executing Walton.” Ante, at 179. Lest any reader be confused by the concurrence’s remark, it is *183worth emphasizing that I would only remand for a single factual finding by the district court and that on appeal this finding would be reviewed under the highly deferential “clear error” standard. In the event that it is determined that Walton understands what "to die” means, his execution would proceed.
While the majority and I are divided with respect to what the Eighth Amendment requires here, I have no doubt that we — as well as the State — share a firm conviction that no individual should be put to death in violation of the Constitution.

. Judge Williams’ concurring opinion states (incorrectly) that I have rewritten Ford (or *184have crafted an interpretation that is “without basis” in Ford). Ante, at 180. Far from rewriting Ford, I am merely doing what I am constitutionally obligated to do: deciding whether competency under the Eighth Amendment includes the fundamental understanding that death means the end of physical life. To the extent Ford addresses this question, it supports my view. To the extent Ford does not address the question, I believe that the Eighth Amendment cannot require less than a rudimentary comprehension of the end result of execution.

. I agree with the majority opinion that the proper test for competency to be executed includes neither an ability to assist counsel, see ante, at 172, nor an ability to “prepare ... mentally and spiritually for his passing,” id. at 172-173.

. After expressing her concerns regarding Walton’s mental state, Dr. General was removed from her duties on death row.

. For the reasons set forth in Judge Motz's opinion for the panel, see Walton v. Johnson, 407 F.3d 285, 294-97 (4th Cir.2005), I would remand for further consideration of Walton’s claim that he cannot be executed because he is mentally retarded, see Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).