# Appendix — Bell v. Thompson

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0045%3A05

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 545 U.S. 794

## Text

a
| (0) NOV 18 2005

No. 04-514

In the Supreme Court of the United States

RICKY BELL, WARDEN
Petitioner,

Vv.

r GREGORY THOMPSON,
Respondent.

EDITOR’S NOTE

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A BETTER

COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE WILL BE
; APPENDICES TO
, RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

ISSUED.

ee
g
: :
-

Ss aS wo Y TI Tw Tol Own

ORDER

Petitioner Gregory Thompson (“Thompson” or “Petitioner”) was convicted of first degree
murder and sentenced to death by the Criminal Court of Coffee County, Tennessee. Petitioner is
currently confined at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Thompson —
has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and requesis an evidentiary hearing on his competency
to be executed [Court Pile No. 1}. Petitioner has also filed s motion for stay of execution [Court
File No. 2], based on s claim that he is incompetent to be executed. See Ford v. Wainwright, 477
U.S. 399 (1986). Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251, the Court GRANTS a brief stay of Thompson's execution that
SHALL expire atomatically upon the issuance of an order by this court denying Thompson's
petition but that shall remain in place upon the issuance of an order granting Thompson's writ of
habeas corpus [Court File No. 2].

The Clek is DIRECTED to fax an executed copy of this Order to Warden Ricky Bell,
Riverbend Maximmm Security, Nashville, Tennessee; to the Attorney of General of Tennessee; and
Ms. Danna C. Hansen Chavis of the Federal Commmnity Defender Service in Knoxville. The Cak

is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the entire file in this action by certified mail on the respondent and
Attomey General of Tennessee. .

h is furtha ORDERED that Respondent SHALL submit his response within ten (10)days
from the date of this order.

The case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the disposition of all non-dispositive motions.
ENTER:

EE
CURTIS L COLLIER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

| in Case 1:04-cv-00177 Thompson v. Bell “Order on Mo

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents
once without

charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document
during this

first viewing.

U.S. District Court (Live Database)
Eastern District of Tennessee

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from ALR, entered on
6/21/2004 at 3:05

PM EDT and filed on 6/21/2004

Case Name: Thompson v. Bell
Case Number: 1:04-cv-177 http: //ecf. tned. uscourts. gov/cqi-
bin/DktRpt.pl1738604

Document Number: 4

Copy the URL address on the line below into the location bar of your
Web browser

to view the document:

Docket Text:

ORDER granting a brief stay of Thompson's execution that shall expire
automatically upon issuance of sn order by this court denying
°

—- but shall remain in place upon issuance of an order granting

hompson's ’

Cee 2 Deere cangED Cave and the Respondent shall submit his

re thia

j Bony from the date of this order; case referred to the Magistrate
or

the di tion of all non-dispositive motions. Signed by Judge

Curtis L Collier

on 6/21/04. (ALA, )

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description: Main Document

Original filename: n/a

Electronic document wry +

(STAMP dcecfStamp_ID-1062680380 [Date=6/21/2004) [FileNumber=78533-

0)

[b0c14 —* , rrrcssssait SCOd7b2ef413544£S8df9dbaeeldce99de0bcS97f18
0§53bdcdb

£d0£83207£9648299f14651ec4 2926976aab2b796713e0d47) }

1:04-cv-177 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Dana C Hansen Chavis
dana_hansen@fd.org,

Shaclott_Swanger@fd.orgsMelinda Christian@fd.orgsMichele Daniel@fd.or
9

1:04-cv-177 Notice will not be electronically mailed to:
Leonard Green

United States Court of Appeals

For the Sizth Circuit

100 East Fifth Street, Room 532

Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse

Cincinnati, OB 45202-3988

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR COFFEE COUNTY
MANCHESTER, TENNESSEE

GREGORY THOMPSON,

as
)
Petitioner,
¥ )
Respondent MAY 29 2001

Gry

_ PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
Hearing Requested

Comes now Petitioner, Gregory Thompson, through undersigned counsel pursuant te
T.C_A § 40-26-105 and Burford v, State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992), and petitions the Court
for a writ of error coram nobis granting an evidentiary hearing on his claim of subsequently or
newly discovered evidence thet, l presented at earlier state proceedings, would have resulted
in 8 cifferent judgment. in support hereof Mr. Thompson shows as follows:

On January 19, 2001, Dr. Casey C. Amey, a treating mental health professional at the
Special Needs Facilty of the Tennessee Department of Corrections submitted a swom
recommendation for the appointment of a conservator for Mr. Thompson. Or. Amey stated:

recommended by the treatment review committee to be treated with involuntary
medication [sic] and have @ conservator assigned to him.

it is my opinion that Mr. Thompson lacks the insight into his Biness to
make decisions regarding mental health and medical treatment at this time. |

believe that a conservator is necessary to make appropriate decisions regarding

his care and without such harm is likely to come to Mr.

Thompson or others as a result of his mental Iiness. Mr. Thompson's iliness is

chronic and fluctuating in nature, therefore extended periods of marked

improvement are not expected.

(Competency Evaluation of Greg Thompson by Casey Amey, M.D.; Attachment A\,

Acting on Dr. Arney’s professional recommendation, Tennessee Attorney General and
Reporter, Paul G. Summers, petitioned the State Chancery Court for the appointment of a
conservator. Attorney General Summers asserted that Mr. Thompson “is in need of protection
and assistance by reason of the Iliness rendering him presently disabled.” (Petition by
Attorney General and Reporter Paul G. Summers For Appointment of Conservator, p. 1;
Attachment B). Attorney General Summers requested the Chancery Court find Mr. Thompson
“incapable of managing his person ... based upon his present mental condition” (id, at p. 2) and
“in view of the seriousness of the Respondent's [Mr. Thompson's] condition the Court
immediately appoint e Guardian ad Litem and expedite these proceedings.” (id, st p. 3).

On April 26, 2001, the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20" Judicial District,

Davidson County, appointed Sherry Goodwin as conservator for Mr. Thompson. (Order of the

During Me. Thompson's capital trial the deposition of Dr. Watson wes introduced into
evidence despite defense counsel's objection. Dr. Watson testified that Mr. Thompson was not
psychotic and instead was malingering mental liness. (Trial Transcript Vol. 20, p. 153). Or.
Watson further testified that Mr. Thompson “had no mental Miness or defect which would render

{2}

o--

him harmful to himself or others.” (Trial Transcript Vol. 20, p. 169). During closing angument
the prosecutors argued that Or. Watson found

A malingering or faking of a mental lines. This man [Mr. Thompson} had no

mental illness. He has no organicity, he has no brain damage, but he has

antisocial behavior - mean and sorry. That is all that is wrong with Gregory

Thompson. There is nothing wrong with him...

(Trial Transcript Vol 21 at p. 8; see also id, at p. 68 & 73). In rendering Its decision on direct
appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court relied upon Dr. Watson's testimony. State y,.
Thompson, 768 S.W.2d 239, 244, 248-249 (Tenn. 1989).

In opening remarks at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction trial
court isted two issues R deemed “relevant and pertinent’: the ineflective assistance of trial
counsel and “the present mental condition and capacity of the petitioner (Mr. Thompson}."
(Post-Conviction Transcript Vol |, p. 3).

During the post-conviction hearing the prosecutor argued that Mr. Thompson did not
suffer from psychosis, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. (Post-Conviction Transcript Vol. li, pp.
223 -248). Instead, the prosecutor argued that Mr. Thompson was malingering mental Iliness
and had “antisocial personaly disorder.” (id, at p. 256-257).' On appeal the Tennessee Court
of Criminal Appeals also reled upon the argument that Mr. Thompson malingered mental
Miness. Thompson y. State, 958 S.W.2d 156, 166-167 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1997).

Contrary to Its position during prior state court proceedings the State of Tennessee has
finaly acknowledged that Mr. Thompson suffers from a genuine and debilitating mental liness.
Mr. Thompson's mental Iliness Is directly related to the offense for which he stands convicted of
first-degree murder and under sentence of death. As Dr. Amey states in his affidavit, Mr.

‘in fact, Dr. Watson did not support a finding of ‘antisocial disorder” but
instead “adult antisocial behavior.” (Trial Transcript Vol. 20, p. 161-162) Dr. Blalr explained
that ‘adult antisocial behavior [) is not a disorder. It just means, in essence, that
someone has broken the law and its very different from having an antisocial personality
disorder..." (Post-Conviction Transcript Vol. li, p. 256).

3}

eee

“ Thompson's assault on staff “is related to his mental iliness” and “harm is Iikely to come to Mv.
Thompson or others as a result of his mental iliness.” (See Attachment A).

This Court should review Mr. Thompson's case in ight of the recent evidence of Me.
Thompson's long-standing mental incapacity. ‘The purpose of the writ of error coram nobis ls to
bring to the attention of the court some facts unknown to the court which, lf known, would hve
‘resulted In a different judgment. State ex rei, Cartson v, State, 219 Tenn. 80, 85-86, 407
S.W.2d 165, 167 (Tenn. 1966). A writ of error coram nobis wil issue upon @ showing by the
defendant that he was without fault in falling to present thet evidence at the proper time. State
v. Mion, 983 8.W.2d 661, 668 (Tenn. 1999). ‘The wilt should lssue for Mr. Thompson.

| Throughout Mr. Thompson's state court proceedings counsel knew that Mr. Thompson's
mental state was the crucial issue. (Triad Transcript Vol. |, p. 38, 120). Mr. Thompson believed
he and Ms. McNamara were on the run from the Ku Klux Kian. They fled from Georgie to
Tennessee. When Ma. McNamars's relative, with whom they had sought refuge, refused them
further lodging, they sttempted to return home to Georgia. Without money or transportation,
the kidnaping of the victim to obtain her car wes understandable. But trial counsel could not
understand why the victim had been killed when there were other shemetives end knew that the
Jury would have the same lingering question. (Post-conviction Transcript Vol. |, p. 134). indeed
Martin Trimble, the foreperson of the jury, later testified at the motion for new trist

| have stated, and | believe, that the one fact that wes not as developed as |
would have thought, out of a case that wes as detailed es i was, was his age
and those contributing factors that might have led him to turn from a wel-
rounded young man, I'l say, to the type of person he turned out to be. | am not

{4)

10

a clinical psychologist or anything, but! believe there might have been more

work done in that area; but again, | don't know that It would be an overriding

factor. tt would be one that might have eased my conscious or made me have a

better feeling about what we did. We took that very serious. You do not say to

take @ man's iife without being doggone serious, folks. We did that, and we

discussed that at length among ourselves; and the conclusion — and | have to

say that | agreed with & — was that he was old enough and had the background

to have done better than he did; but | do think that probably more could have

been done along that line.

(Motion for New Trial, Vol. | p. 77).

Counsel did request a mental health evaluation of Mr. Thompson. (Trial Technical
Record p. 19, Motion for Mental or Psychological Examination; Trial Transcript Vol. |, p. 41).
The trial court granted the motion by sending Mr. Thompson to Middle Tennessee Mental
Health institute (MTMHM"), 8 state facility, for evaluation. (Trial Technical Record p. 64-65,
Motion for Continuance; Trial Technical Record p. 84, Order). At MTMHI Mr. Thompson was
given “numerous tests” by what the state described as a “team” of experts. (Trial Transcript
Vol. XIX, p. 35, 52; Trial Transcript Vol. XX, p. 157, 176). The team made a joint evaluation to
which Dr. Watson, the forensic psychologist, testified.

Counsel also fied @ notice of insanity defense. (Trial Transcript, Vol. If p. 162).
Counsel questioned the independence of MTMHI's psychiatric evaluation (Trial Transcript, Vol.
1, p. 20) and requested their own psychiatrist pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma. (Trial Transcript,
Vol |, p. 111). The request was granted. (Trial Technical Record, p. 234, Order). Despite (a)
the court's order approving a psychiatrist to examine Mr. Thompson and assist the defense, (b)
the knowledge that the State would have psychiatric and other medical opinions of Mr.
Thompson at Its disposal, and (c) the Ake prescription of a psychiatrist to assist in the defense,
counsel used the court-ordered mental health funds to hire Dr. Copple who was not a
psychiatrist but an “industrial psychologist’ (Trial Transcript Vol. |, p. 119). The effort to hire a
psychiatrist simply “was not successful’ (Post-conviction Transcript, Vol. fl, p. 193). Before
hiring the industrial psychologist, counsel had tried to find a particular psychiatrist, but “he hed

{5}

11

_ Moved to idaho” (Post-conviction Transcript, Vol. |, p. 43). Counsel “had a kind of a vague
recollection of trying to talk to a couple of psychiatrists in Nashville...” (Id, at 45).
Yet three psychiatrists who had treated Mr. Thompson from 1985, when the trial took
place, to 1990 told a very different story than that of the MTMHiI team. The treating
psychiatrists

auditory hallucinations, his delusions, his paranoia, his thoughts of

He had attempted suicide on a couple of occasions. He had set fire to his cell
both-his hands and his face. They had certainty — two of those

psychiatrists and maybe afl three of them had considered the possibility thai he

was malingering, that he was faking mental Iiness and throughout thelr

Riverbend records, it was clear that those had discounted the

possibility of malingering because they didn’t feel that R accounted for ail of the

psychotic symptoms they saw in him.
(Post-conviction Transcript Vol. Il, p. 209-10).

Mr, Thompson was evalusted at MTMHI by the State's team for thirty days. The
industrial psychologist, however, analyzed Mr. Thompson for # tota: of less than eight hours:
two sessions lesting three and one-half hours each and two further sessions lasting twenty
minutes each. (Trial Transcript, v. 18, p. 123-124, 127).

Trial counse! made an uninformed decision that the guilt-phase case could not be
defended. (Post-conviction Transcript, Vol. |, p. 58). Instead, counsel focused on securing
witness testimony about Petitioner’s good acts and exemplary behavior up through his high
school years for presentation st the sentencing phase. (Post-conviction Transcript, Vol. il, p.
192). Admittedly, counsel failed to pursue what they considered “negative” information about
Mr. Thompson. Without expert psychiatric essistance counsel falled to understand the
significance of such information. Since counsel, being uninformed and untrained on such

matters, could not explain Mr. Thompson's drastic change of behavior subsequent to high

12

school, they offered the jury what information they had. Mr. Thompson's changed behavior
remained unexplained.

The defense presented no theory whatever at guill/innocence and Mr. Thompson was
convicted of first-degree murder. At the penalty phase they put on a bizarre, incredible
defensive theory — that Mr. Thompson committed a brutal murder out of a need to “nurture.”
(Trial Transcript, Vol. XVII, p. 142-143 and Vol. XIX, p. 2-5).

Mr. Thompson's prior head injuries were brought out at the punishment phase: one from
an auto accident where he sustained a concussion and required hospitalization (Trial
Transcript, Vol. XPX, p. 152) and another from an assault by three men with a hammer or
crowbar, opening a wound which required stitches (Trial Transcript, Vol. XVII, p. 54). Ms.
Cajulao testified that directly after suffering the latter injury Mr. Thompson

sotetrat ars tteareerenh sscgee maaan

He would tell me when | came home to make sure nobody was standing behind
there that might hurt me.

0d. at p. 56). Without @ psychiatrist the defense was unable to explain the significance of these
events or even address — much less counter — the state mental health team's conclusion that
Mr. Thompson had neither brain darmage or “psycho-motor impairment” (Trial Transcript, Vol.
XX, p. 156). Predictably, the industrial psychologist, since he was not a medical doctor, had
found no evidence of brain damage (Post-conviction Transcript, Vol. fl, p. 188).

The industrial psychologist testified only at the sentencing phase. He asserted a belief
that Mr. Thompson committed the brutal murder due to s need to “nurture” people — in this
case, Ms. MacNamare (Trial Transcript, Vol. XIX, p. 26). Having examined Mr. Thompson, the
psychologist testified that “I find in this man @ very strong, an unusually strong need for what we
call nurturance, to meet the needs of people” (Trial Transcript, Vol. XVIll, p. 141). Of Mr.
Thompson's motive in committing the offense, the psychologist reasserted the shattered

{7}

13

« defense theory that the murder had been cormmitted due to fear of capture. This theory was

incomprehensible even with the industrial psychologist's backing; the need to “nurture” Ms.
MacNamare by helping her may have provided some explanation for the taking of the victim's
car, and possibly explained the kidnaping of the victim as @ means to getting her car, but
provides only a flimsy explanation for the ter murder of the victim. Because, in Mr. Trimbie’s
words, “those contributing factors that might have led him Mr. Thompson] to tum from a well
rounded young man....to the type of person he tumed out to be” were not developed, Mr.
Thompson was sentenced to death.

During post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Thompson raised an ineflective sssistance of
counsel claim. Post-conviction counsel repeatedly requested funds for e mental hesith expert
to demonstrate prejudice from trial counsel's deficient performance with respect to the mental
health aspects of the case. The prosecutor argued that counsel were not entitled to experts at
state expense (Post-conviction Transcript Vol. |, p. 16) and state law did not provide for expert
services on post-conviction. Counsel submitted the affidavl of Dr. Gillan Blair who opined that
based on existing information Mr. Thompson had shown s deteriorating mental status since
1985, was Skely suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the crime, and further expert
evaluation was required. (Post-conviction Transcript, Vol. Il, p. 199, 219). The post-conviction
court denied the requested funding. (Pretrial Hearing, Jan. 16, 1998, p. 6).

Prior to the post-conviction hearing the prosecutor talked to the medical staff at
Riverbend and reviewed Mr. Thompson's medical records. Mr. Thompson was taken off his
anti-psychotic medication shortly after the prosecutor's visit. At the post-conviction hearing the
prosecution argued that since Mr. Thompson was off his medication he wes not mentally &
(Post-convi tion Transcript, Vol. Il, p. 247), and was malingering mental iliness. Because Mr.
Thompson was denied funding for mental health expert assistance he could not counter the
state's position that Mr. Thompson was malingering mental liness nor demonstrate prejudice

{8}

from trial counsel's deficient performance. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition and
denied relief. Mr. Thompson's post-conviction appeals were denied.

Although Mr. Thompson attempted to litigate his mental health related claims in prior
state proceedings a combination of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the court's denial
of expert assistance impaired his ability to adequately plead and prove his claima.
Compounding these errors the prosecution actively denied that Mr. Thompson was mentally &
and misrepresented the Riverbend medical records which documented his Mines. The State of
Tennessee now acknowledges Mr. Thompson's severe mental iliness and incompetence. Dr.
Amey's competency evaluation affidavit clearly states that Mr. Thompson's Diness has been
long-standing and presents @ danger to himself or others. This was the explanation for the
crime which trial counsel and the jury had been seeking. Mr. Thompson's case should now be
reviewed in light of this new evidence.

Although T.C.A. § 27-7-103 provides a statute of limitation requiring # petition for writ of
error coram nobis to be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, to apply
the statute of imkations in this context would be unconstitutional in this case. Burford v, State,
845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992). in Burford, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that e statute of
imitation may be unconstitutional as applied:

os ee peer pnt

afford # reasonable opportunity to have the claimed issue heard and decided.

Burford, 845 S.W.2d at 208; citing Michel v, Louisiang, 350 U.S. 95 (1955). The Court has”
directed that the application of Tennessee's statute of limitations must comport with due
process. Burford y, State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992). The Court requires that

{9}

_— —

an applicant a reasonable opportunity to have the claimed issue heard and
determined.

Burford, id, at 208; see also Workman vy. State, No. W2001-00774-SC-R11-PD (Tenn. March
30, 2001). This determination is made on a case-by-case basis by weighing a petitioner's
fiberty interest in collsterally attacking the constitutional violations occurring during the
conviction process against the state's interest in preventing the litigation of stale and fraudulent
claims." Sands y, State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995). ;

in order to insure that Tennessee's post-conviction statute of imitations comports with
constitutional principtes, the Tennessee Supreme Court set forth the following due process rule
and analysis:

due process prohibits the strict application of the post-conviction statute of

fecal, aie ofa © the pont at which the lmbations periods would normaly

have begun to run. :
Sands y. Stete, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995). To determine whether due process
prohibits the strict application of the statute of limitations courts must (1) determine when the
limitations period would normally have begun to run; (2) determine whether the grounds for
rellef actually arose after the limitations period would normally have commenced, and (3) If the
grounds are “later-arising”, determine if, under the facts of the case, a strict application of the
limitations period would effectively deny the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present the
claim. id

? in Burford, the court found the state's interest in the sdministrative efficiency and
economy created by a time bar insufficient to outweigh the petitioner's interest, 845 S.W.2d at
209, holding that “where an alleged infringement of s constitutional right often affects Me or
liberty, conventional notions of finality associated with civil Iitigation have less importance and
pnt et ange ty sett coment Ge cniaun® id. citing
of government, standing save
Sanders y, United Ststes, 373 U.S. 1, 8, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L_Ed.2d 148 (1963); LN.S. v,
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L_Ed.2d 317 (1983).

{10}

16

Following Burford, application of the one year statute of limitation to Mr. Thompson's
petition for writ of error coram nobis would be unconstitutional as applied. It was orily recently
that the State of Tennessee acknowledged Mr. Thompson's long-standing mental liness,
declared him incompetent and appointed him a conservator. The State of Tennessee has no
legitimate interest in creating procedural barriers to review of Mr. Thompson's mental health
related claims.’ See Reynolds v, Berry, 146 F.3d 345, 347(6th Cir. Ky. 1998); Rickman y,
Dutton, 864 F.Supp. 686, 706 (M.D.Tenn. 1994) aff'd 131 F.3d 1150 (6* Clr. 1997)(Giglio claim
not defaulted because state has no legitimate interest in creating procedural barriers to review
of issues involving the state's presentation of false testimony). Mr. Thompson has diligently
brought these facts to the attention of the state court. Mr. Thompson is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on this new evidence. See Workman y, Stste, supra.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Thompson respectfully requests that this Court grant him an
evidentiary hearing on his mental health related claims in fight of the State's recent concession

that Mr. ee ,

grant such other relief as Is just and equitable.

* Additionally, the State waived the application of a procedural bar defense by
withholding the information necessary for Petitioner's claims and asserting that Mr.

{12}

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Dana C. Hansen, hereby certify that @ true and correct copy of the foregoing —
document was mailed to:

this the 23 day of May 2001, by postage prepaid delivery.

_)yna CHaeserr

Dane C. Hansen

{13}

+

—* Richland Creek Psychiatric Associates, LLP
4535 Barding Read
Briaa R Swenson, M.D. Suite 210
Panis &. Nunn, M.D.
Richard EK. Rochester, M.D.
Jeri K. Fitzpatrick, M.D.
Johanne C. Shadoin, L.CS.W.

Casey C. Arecy, MD.
Terry M. Buff, L.C_S.W.
Jack L. Kock, Jr.. MLB.
Rebecca J. Roberts, M.D.

Hal C. Schofield, MLB.

Telephone 615-383-0095
Pocsimic 6)5-383-0)89_
Michele H. Batte, Practice Manager

Dear Ms. Baker

This letter serves as a physicians recommendation for for Greg Thompson. Mr.
Thompsons is a 38 year old gentleman with a long history of Bipolar Disorder and psychotic symptoms.
He has severe symptoms of mania with racing tangential thoughts, pressured speech, in delusional
grandiosity. He becomes severely agitated and hostile at times. He has assaulted staff in the recent
past which appears to be related to his mental ness. It has been recommended by the treatment
review committee to be treated with involuntarily medication and have a conservator assigned to him.

ht is my opinion that Mr. Thompson lacks the insight into his iiness to make decisions regarding
mental bealth and medical treatment at this time. ] bebeve that a conservator js necessary to make
*ppropnate decisions regarding his care and without such harm is likely to come to
Mr. Thompson or others as a result of his mental iliness. Mr. Thompson’s illness is chronic and .
fructuating in nature, therefore extended periods of marked improvement are not expected.

| xe esgaitea) OF-17-O/

ee

a oe tanaetrentosdije Muhe

_ .

: mee . ‘
cen._}ste DEPARTMENT OF CORRECxiOm
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE

wore wwe Thenpren, Crug wom 102804 ome @ ww 2/3 flt "png

REPORT OF INITIAL PHYSICIAN MEETING VITH_IWATED

videad at dens wr. peer rte Wits, Planse snct
lenate’s Signsture Deve
ber ° ie 1; F for

Physicion’s Signstwre | ‘NS

te REPORT OF SECO PHYSICIAN'S ine WITH
Secoed Physician's Recoumsedst lonis)s

Titte

32-3329 (5/89)
‘ege 1 of 2 pages

ms 1458

OTA HEALTH TREATIONT REVIGY COM ITTEE

Phongson \oB4OL | a ye

IV. REPORT OF TREATMENT REVIEW COMITTEES |

OF PUTA Wis tual w wn re
eget betta oan Mae yas r Th whe y
a vAtntn of uw
rethsit och oo. | * e 4,
Pu ‘ales
wap I-B- 04

ATTACHMENT

fa : Aeon Wile? pt Gitar tee |
Oth bile a bt 1 LG O/-0b-O/

“BR”

bite Copy: Mesith Record .
ellew Copy: Tresteest Tees Coo dlaster

&-3329 (5/89) |
age 2 of 2 pages ; es-1450

; vet

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, DAVIDSON COUNTY

me =F RECEIVED”

Petitioner, } ON aon lS AND Claman One
aS NO. —
IN THE MATTER OF | Of fH a)
GREG THOMPSON, #108408, ) & S
) es)!
2°
3

Comes now the’ Petitioner, the Tennessee Department of Correction, ae
ttvough the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee, and
respecthiy states as follows:

1. The Respondent, Greg Thompson is a thirty-nine (39) year old male presently
incarcerated at Lois DeBerry Special Needs Facility, 7575 Cocksill Bend industrial Road,
Nashville, Tennessee 37208-1057. He is sentenced to desth for first degree murder.

2 The Respondent is in need of protection and assistance by reason of the Eness
rendering him presently dleabled as defined in T.C.A. Section 34-11-1010,

The Respondent has been diagnosed by Dr. Casey Amey, his resting
peychianiet, as suffering from 2 long history of Bipolar Disorder and peychotie
symptoma.

. The Respondent is unable to understand the need for treatment with psychotropis

medication or the correiation between the medication and the cessation of his
symptome. He hes Ittle understanding of how his medication works, and minimal insight
into the presence of his Eness. sia:

ht is the opinion of Or. Casey Amey, his treating psychiatrist, that the Respondent
is incapable of making rational decisions regarding his restnent needs and is in need of
8 conservator to monitor his medical and psychiatric trestnent.

Page tat 3

- owe

_ APPENDIX

ms, Boy

MANCHESTER, TENNESSEE
GREGORY THOMPSON, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Case Mo: 31,213
* )
)
RICKY BELL. Warden, )
° )
Reepondert. )

REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOGIB

Comes now Petitioner, Gregory Thompson, trough undersigned counsel, and flies this
Reply to Respondent's meeponee to pation for 2 weit of error corsm not im support hereaf
ta. Thompsen shows as follows
L Respondent has Overtookied the Evidence Concerning Mr. Thomoson's

Mental State ai the Time of the Offense,

Reepondent iniiedy argues het ka Thompson neither sfeges nor presents evidence
hat his metal probiems “existed at the fine of the crime (January 1, 1985) nor during the tied
(Aasqust 28 - 72, 1985)" (Resporees, p 2-3) Reepondert hes, however, overiooked both te
siegeton end evidence of exactly tat These am noted on page 8 of the Pedlion tor Welt of
&srer Cora.) Nobia. There Mr. Thompson recounts the afiidevé of Or. Gillan Bist, which was
sutrniied as pert of the post-conviction proceedings. ' Ae ihe Pelion states, in tut affice@ Br.
7~

poe re
the thme of the crime, ard turther expert evetuation wes required. Post
conwiction Tranecript, Vol. fp. 198,219} The post-conviction court denied tre
requested turding. (Previa! Hearing, Jen 14, 1908, p &
(Peiiion, p. 6) (emphasis added) pee sien Affidevé of Dr. Blair, Atiechment A. Since Or. Stal
is an expert, her opinion is evidence. See Tenn. RP. Evid. 702. One suspects sino that Sis
| woudd be Dr. Amey’s opinion in his affidevl Or. Amey, @ state peychiatrial, describes Mr.
Thompson as heving “s long history of Bipoter Disorder and psychotic symptoms.”
{Competency Eveiuston of Greg Thompson by Casey Arney, M.D_ Attachment B) (emphasis

edded). Addilionelly, Faye E. Suman, PhD. hes reported that “Mr. Thompson wae dlaptaying

“Dr. Biatr’s sfideva was subriitied in support of # motion for funding of expsst
essistance. The motion wes denied.

significant signs of mental ness trom the time he was e small chiki’ (Report of Or. Faye E
Suan, PhD. Atachment C). Significantly, Dr. Sultan reports thet

2 erasecepeeeemmnerines ss,

would have substantial impaired Mr. Thompson's sbllty to conform he conduct

io fhe requirements of the ins.
I: ane.aine Deposttion of Dr. Suiten, Attachment D. Or. Barry Crown, PhD. reports
hat “Wx. Thompeon suffers from 8 major mental dmordecthough disorder, to wit, tat ine
suflers torn schizosfiectve disorder-bipcier subtype wah organic components.” (Report of Br.
Serr Crown, Ph.D, Aliachment &}. Onset of tie deorder typically occurs in early ecutthood. -
ik Exper opinion Geary indicates fret Mr Thompson suflered trom mental Bness at te time
of the tere. A combination of reflective mesitance of counsel, Gate of rescurces, snd st
mincorchc provarted the bry trom tering cet tc Aces comnenny cow .
prope -eeckdon of he ema ,

in short, contrary to Respondent's sssedion, Mr. Thompson presented both am
stegeton and evidence - in the form of expert opinion — thet hie mental condiion exdated ta
1908 and tt 8 dose go 10 he insu of gull of frat degree murder end sentencing for any

a Counsel as one of Denial of Prrchistis Asstetenes,

Respandent gues on to exp Seat ie, Thompocr’s inafleciive exsistanse of esuneel eu

claim tacks mort because he has not shown why» quallled and competent peychiatist ." at that time. She did not recall how they obtained food or clothing, or whether they were in any
: distress. Ms. Lamar reported that she was drinking alcobol quite hesvily during this period and
that she left her bed fo resume household activities only because the children contracted a serious

Thompson has suffered from significant mental iTiness since at least the time of hi Ma. Lamar described Mr. Thompeon as displaying significantly “different” béhsvior when be
ae ete He has been treated almost continvously with some combinstion of : returned to visit her following his discharge from the U.S. Navy. “Greg didn’t act the sams”.
} — SN me nes ee ee He has received « ; Unlike the ‘eager to please’, passive, sometimes funny, gentle boy who she had reared, Mx
variety of diagnostic inchoding Psychosis, Prychosis Not Otherwise Specified, Paranoid Thompson was “angry”, “sometimes sad™. “I don’t think he wanted me to know what was going -:
Schizophrenia, Mania, Mixed Substance Abuse, Schizophrenia, BiPolar Affect! ve Disorder, | on with him He mostly just stayed sway from me.” Ms. Lamar reported that she noticed Me. te Ae
Schizoaffective Disorder, Malingering, and Adult Antisocial Behavior. This is clearly indicative ; Thompson sometimes “staring off into space” or “talking to himself”. She would ask him shout —
of the Tennessee DOC mental health staff's view that Mr. Thompson has experienced major : these behavior. “He'd demy it. He acted like he didn't know what I was talking bowl” Ma
mental ilness throughout at least most of his period of incarceration. Further, there is extensive Lamar recalls being quite concerned sbout her grandson's mental state during this time. She did
documentation contained in these records of many episodes of bizarre aggressive and/or self not recall ever being asked these questions at any time before or during Mr. Thompson's trial.
- | Ms. Nora Jean Bal Wharten re | |
: | Norma Jean Wharton is Mr. Thompson's older sister. A lengthy telephone interview was
INTERVIEWS WITH COLLATERAL WITNESSES: conducted with ber on huly 21, 1999. She grew up in the same home as Mr. Thompson and had
, ' continuous contact with him throughout his childhood Mr. Thompson lived briefly in the home
Five individuals were interviewed (cither by telephone or face-to-face) who provided significant of his sister following his discharge from the military.
functioning of Mr. Gregory Thompsoa. Ms. Wharton described Mr.Greg Thompson as a highly sensitive, passive, timid, emotionally -

ee . vulnerable child She described a childhood of great hardship. According to ber report, thelr

- gundmother, Ms. Maybelle Lamar was verbally abusive, neglectful of the children's basic daily
, needs, highly critical, and unable to care property for the children. Ms. Wharton described many
instances of such abuse and neglect. She described the period following their mother's death as
particularty chaotic and neg)ectful, recalling that often there was no food in the home and that the

?

47’

continvously drunk and unable to care for her grandchildren. According to Ms. Wharton, a
Thompson frequently witnessed his sister Nora being beaten by their grandmother. sa MICHAEL CHAVIS

: ; ,
Ms. Wharton further recalled that she and her younger brother had witnessed the brutal beating Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee investigator, Mr. Michael Chavis, was
and rape of their mother by their biological father. She recalls Greg standing in the scene interviewed about his July 29 through August 2 , 1998 interview with Ms. Arlene Cajulao in
screaming and sobbing uncontrollably. , Honoluha, Hawai ws ony ee had an intimate relationship and lived
: together for approximately four years, from 1980 to 1984.
Ma. Wharton reported that Greg would frequently cry at school during the carly schoo! year, |
and, as 8 result, was ofen the victim of intense mockery from his classmates. Because Ma Mr. Chavis reported that Ms. Cajulao described Mr. Thompson as displaying increasingly bizarre
Wharton was in the same classroom as her brother she observed these behaviors and oftes behavior during the Istier part of their relationship. Similar to descriptions proved by Ms. Nors
intervened on ber brother's behalf, She described Mr. Thompson's response to this abuse as Wharton, Ms. Cajulao reported several episodes of “parancid” and aggressive behavior which
quite passive. had no spparent external antecedent. She reported that Mr. Thompson sometimes thought that
:, ~ | | people were “afler” him. He would close all the curtains in the house because he did not want
Of particular significance is Ma. Wharton's recollections sbout Mr. Thompson repestedly the person who was “looking” for him to see him through the curtains. She remembers being
banging his bead against the wall of their home on many occasions during their carly childhood. quite concerned about Mr. Thompson's mental state. ,
This behavior frequently followed their grandmother yelling at Greg “You have the Devil is 9 :
you." Mr, Thompson would tell his sister that he was attemnpting to “knock the Devil out” of ie ; . —_
bead in this way. Ms. Wharton recalls believing that this behavior was quite odd. ° SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS : ..:
Mr. Gregory Thompson has experienced symptoms of major mental illness throughout his adult
Following his discharge from military service, Ma. Wharton described Mr. Thompson's behsvier Hife. Indeed, there is information svailable which suggests that Mr. Thompson was displaying
as significantly different than his prior conduct and sttitude. She reported several cpisodesef significant signe of mental iTiness from the time he was a small child Self-injurious behavior is
bizarre behavior which inchoded a sudden intense emotions! reaction without obvious external reported as carty as six years old. There is extensive documentation contained within the records
provocation. Mr. would become extremely angry, would cry and scream for a Jenthy reviewed for this evaluation that Mr. Thompson has experienced a thought disorder and/or am
period of time, would sppear as ifbe might or ectually become quite physically violent or affective disorder of some type for many years. |
concerns to her grandmother. Lamar soggested that Ms. Wharton take ber brother ht is my opinion that Mr. Gregory Thompson is most sppropristely diagnosed, according to the
the psychiatric unit of the local hospital for treatment. Ms. Wharton did not stiempt to get any Dioguosde and Susdededl Mama of Mecnad Diserdane Potcts Bandon eo tnving Sdidee ative
veatment for Mr. Thompeon and reports fecling quite guilty sbout this. Disorder, Bipolar Type. As is typical of this (iness, became te a
adulthood. Mr. Thompson was suffering serious mental iTiness at the time of the 1985 offense
yee, Soe han voncleed en cetias euesS RB S&&SLA hh & & wR OO

reading level for the proper administration of the
MMPI-2. |

Q. And the notes of the clinical interview on that
Gate are among the materiale you'll be forwarding to
Dr. Blau, correct?

A. Yes. That's correct. |

Q. As well as the raw data of the PIP: -

Kk. Yes. | mee

Q. Will that raw data indicate what scoring:
programs you've used on the MMPI?

A. Yes. es

@. Were you able to validly administer an MMPI to
Mr. Thompsom -- '

A. Yes, I was.

Q. -- at that time?

. wenden. Ae

Q. And there were no other standard tests used by
people in your profeesion that you administered. on that
date? ae

A. Mo. Most of the testing had already been
completed by Dr. Crown by the time I saw Mr. Thompson for.
the first time, although I was not aware of any of the
results of that testing.

Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Thompson the facts and
circumstances of the.crime for which he stands convicted

INTERIM COURT REPORTING :
(704) 333-9889

eo enwanweww re

Che s

and sentenced to death during your interview of hia?
A. Yes.

Q. How did you discuss them with him? Did you ask
him questions or detailed questions, Dr. Sultan, or did
you just ask his an open-ended question?

A. I would have had to ask him some open-ended
questions, because I didn't know the details, eo -+ I
hadn't read any factual basis of the crime. That meeting
was my first look at Mr. Thompson and my wanting to see
how he presented himself without a lot of particular
provocation from me, so that, because I was to have a
lengthy time to interview his -- although it turned out
not to be the case, at the time I thought I was going
to -- that interview, I think, would be described as
quite open-ended, basically me asking him to tell me
about himself, about what aspects of his growing-up years
he wanted to talk about. oo

I asked follow-up questions when he would bring
atopic up. He answered a general question about the
offense, and then I would ask some follow-up questions
about that as well.

Q. Do you have your notes of that interview here
with you to refer to?

A. I don't. They're packaged up for Dr. Blau.
'@. #=D4id you write down every fact that Mr. Thompson

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9689

~
o

eo ewtt en vf f¢& & Bw

told you about his recollection of the murder of Ms. Lane
om your notes?

A. 1 don't recall specifically, but wy best guese
would be that, while there's some factual material about
the offense itself, my notes are much more likely to
ceflect his psychological state at the time and what he
recalled about how he felt and what he was experiencing
and what the other people around him seemed to be
experiencing through his observation. So I'm sure
there's factual information, but 1 hesitate to tell you
that every single detail that he suggested to me wound up
in those notes.

Q@. What did Mr. Thompson tell you about the
offense, as best you can recall?

A. As best I recall, Mr. Thompson talked about his
relationship with the young girl that he was with for the
days and weeks prior to thie.

Q. Joanne McNamara?

A. Yes. And how he felt a tremendous need to
protect her. He fancied himself rather as a rescuer of
young women, and thie part of the story came about in his
description of other circumstances in which he had
provided assistance to damsels in distress. Joanne
McNamare wae the last in a line of young girle that
Mr. Thompson viewed himself as taking under hie wing. He

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9869

7+

soe ew#wt#n8eheesemUmerrmlUmMEtlmUlUCCULWhDUlUlCUM

Che Ss

24

was quite disturbed about her circumstances.

What he told me was that they were thrown out
of the place that they had been staying when it was
discovered that they were not in fact married. I don't
know who it was who portrayed them as a.married couple to
the people that they were staying with; but that the.
truth of it was discovered, that someone contacted Joanne
McNamara's mother -- or parents, I don't know which; 1
think mother -- to let her know that thie child was is
her home, the person they were staying with, that
Mr. Thompson forced the victia in this case into her car
at knifepoint.

Mr. Thompson was not sure whether he precisely
recalled that he killed Ms. Lane -- is that correct?

Q. That's correct.

A. Okay. But that he knew that he had in: fact
killed her.

Q. I'm sorry. Would you say that sgain for me?

A. I'11 do my very best. He was not sure -- and I
asked him this specifically -- whether he was recalling
the events from his own memory or from having heard the
recitation of the facts and a reminder of his ow
statement to the police over the years. At this point in
time, we're about 14 1/2 years after the event.

He waen't claiming in any way not to remember,

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9689

~
o

eew7w awe ww ew

simply was unable to make distinctions for me about which
memories were specifically his and which he had read and
heard about in the course of his case and had heard
discussed about him. And, of course, there had been

_ post-conviction hearings and, by then, Supreme Court

Gecisions, and so the facts had been recited many, many
times. I was not clear precisely how clear his
recollection was at the end of that first interview.
That was one of my issues to revisit at a later tine.

Q. Does he have any recollection of actually
stabbing Me. Lane? a

A. He said he wasn't sure, That wae really the
iesve that we talked about. He said that he knew he had
talked about it at some point, and he had been told he
talked about it at some point, but that his emotional
state at the time was pretty disrupted and aroused. At
some point during that conversation Mr. Thompson began to
show a lot of agitation and anxiety, kept expressing «
willingness to talk, but it was clear that in remembering
there was a lot of pain for him, and he expressed « great
deal of remorse to me about the occurrence of the
offense. Said that he had no real understanding even
after all thie time about how he could have been capable
of such a thing. It wae not characteristic of hia,
according to him, for him to be sssaultive in that way.

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9889

re er er ee ee ee ee

se &

Said that he had never killed anyone before and that he
didn't have any reason to hurt Ms. Lane. Said that it
haunted hia. |

Q. # Now were there any visible signs you chserved
of thie anxiety and disturbance?

A. Easier to demonstrate than to talk about
verbally, so I'll do that and see if I can describe what
I'm deing.

Q. Okay, and if you'll do it and maybe --

A. WNarrate it at the same time.

Q. Okay.

A. Oksy. When Mr. Thompson becomes agitated, he
rocks back and forth in his chair, does what I've heard
referred to as pill-rolling, finger rolling with both
hands, rubbed his face a lot with his hands, used the
same phrases over and over sgain, and then became what a
psychologist or psychiatrist might refer to as
tangential, would begin to talk about different subjects
ané then bring himeelf back to the subjecte at hand, or I
might direct him back to the subject at hand.

At some point he began to talk to mus -- and I
Gon't know that it was connected specifically to talk
about the offense, so I want to be careful to say that to
you -~ but at some point during the interview he began to
tell me that he had writterm all of the songs om the radio

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9889

~
o

oeoe#,+#e 8 # & Ww

that I ever listened to, and he began to tell not just mu
that, but any guard that wandered by in the hallway, tell
himself that, told me that sgain and again. I disagreed
with him at first to see what would happen, and he was
quite secure in that belief and wasn't agitated by the
fact that I challenged him. He just thought I. was silly.
And I think that probably would be my interpretation of
agitation. Because it was the first time I saw him, 1
don't know if the belief system that I was hearing about
that seemed so odd wae connected to agitation or simply «
part of what he was like, and so I made some note sbout
that but didn't attach any particular significance to it
at that tine. |

Q: What was hie reaction when you expressed
disbelief about hie writing the songs?

A. He told we I was silly and patted my hand.

Q. If I understood your comments correctly, he
would start out basically on point as he was talking to
you about various aspects of the crime or the issues that -
you were talking about, and then he would become
tangential, correct? Or did he start out tangential at
some pointe and then focue back in on what he wae talking
about ?

A. Pocusing I think is an overstatement in uy
event. I don't think that he ever was really focused.

INTERIM GOURT REPORTING
_ (704) 333-9889

eewrtee*w7esweew re

~
co

Q. Why?

A. Having only seen him that one time in a
relatively coherent state, I don't know what he's like
when his medication is properly regulated and he's at h .
best, but Mr. Thompson in general rambled. His general
style of verbiage was what we would call little loose
in association. Something would remind him of something
else, and he would begin talking about that before he
finished talking about what he started out talking chon.
Was tangential in the sense that whatever associations he
made in his mind that most of us would keep to our

selves -- we all do them, we just don't all say them --

he would then say whatever it was that cocurred to hia.

I didn't do any particular kind of redirecting to see how |

focused he could become. I simply redirected as I needed
to to get a general sense of the way his thought process
was working.

Q. Would you describe Mr. Thompson as being
self-reflective during your initial interview with hia?

A. Wo. |

Q. The reason I asked that _ you did state that
be was talking about how he felt about the crime,

A. The word *reflective* means to me a more
intellectual process.

Q. Ali right.

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9669

eo ewneweeiwew

~~
“ o

A. He emoted a great deal. He reflected very
little. Insight, which is an intellectual kind of
exercise really, almost an academic, removed exerciee, is
not something Mr. Thompson has very much of I don't
think. He reacts very strongly emotionally, and
sometimes out of control emotionally, but I don't think
I'd categorize that as reflective. He was deeply hurt
and deeply upset by his own behavior, became tearful,
rocked a great deal back and forth in hie chair, did the
hand gestures that I talked about, but did he reflect
upon it and describe it to me objectively? 1 don't think
so. ce

@. Was it mr. Thompson's becoming tearful that led
you to conclude that there was remorse and that alone?

A. Wo. I think the content of his verbalisations
was pretty clear as well. 1 don't know what's wrong with
me; how could I have done that; how could I be a beast)
why was I a beast; what wae I thinking; how could thie
happen; should never have happened, I think about her all
the time; she deserved to have a life. With or without
the emotion attached, the content I think ie pretty
clear.

Q. Was this in response to any specific question
by you as to why he did thie crime, or wae thie just part
of his general rambling to you or diecussicn?

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9889

eo e-.7w oo w4weww w

10

A. I don't think I would have asked Mr. Thompson
why he committed the offense during my first meeting with
him. I think he pretty much just chose the way he wanted
to talk about it.

Q. You said that he described Joanne McNamara as
the last in a long line of young women or damsels in ©
distress that. he was rescuing? |

AR. Actually, I think I described it that way.

Q. All right.

A. TI don't think that's a label he would have
used. Again, that indicates a whole lot of —
self-reflection. He simply told me about other girls
that he had helped.

Q. Were you able to verify that there were other
young women he was able to help besides Ms. McNamara?

A. I don't know if I'm able to do that. I haven't
done that. ‘7

‘Q. . Have you asked Mr. Kissinger or Mr. Chavis to
try and verify that for you? .

A. Wo, but it's a very interesting idea.

Q. Did you ask him how he felt he was helping .
these young women?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What wae his response?

A. He protected thea.

INTERIN COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9889

81

31

Q. roa?

A. Enemies.

Q. Was he more specific?

A. Different situations, different enemies.

Joanne McNamara's case, her mother was the enemy." Bvil

men in her mother's home were the enemy. Her mother
wanting her to prostitute. In a situation that he was
deacribing to me in Hawaii -- no, maybe it was a |
situation that took place before he was transferred to
Hawaii; In the service, he rescued two teenage runaway
girle, put them up in his barracks. They came from,
according to him, abusive, violent homes, the arid being
their family -- their families.

Q. . Did he ever tell you that enenend 48 enesuten
young women that he assisted young men?

A. Never. I don't think so, no.

Q. Did you talk with him at all about his —
girlfriend Arlene during this first visit? |

A. Alittle bit, yes. :

Q@. Did you bring up the topic © or aia he?

A. I don't remember.

Q. What do you recall was said about her and his
relationship with her? | ,

A. That he loved her very much, that he knew her
for a long period of time, that they lived together when

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9689

eo e#;,e ne *#® & Ww

10

he was in Hawaii, that he wasn't good enovgh for her.

Q. Did he say why he was not good enough for her?

A. I don't recall that he did specifically, no.

Q. And you didn't ask hia?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. You administered the MMPI-2 to Mr. Thompson.
He willingly took the test?

A. He did.

Q. As you observed him, did he have any difficulty
reading the test and taking it on his own?

A. He didn't have any difficulty reading it. He
required a fair amount of supervision to take it.

Q. Can you elaborate on that for me, please, the
supervision that was required? ~

A. I'11 describe the level of supervision as
unusual statistically, in terms of the number of MMPIe
that I've helped to administer over the years.
Mr. Thompson read some of the items aloud to me and then

made rhyming sounds to some of the words. Some of the

items struck him as particularly amusing, and he would:
laugh out loud, and I would lavgh with him and suggest to
him that he get back to what he was doing. It didn't
wind up taking him -- part of how I suspected he might be
of normal intellicence is that it didn't take him much
longer than the average person who does it without the

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9689

ee, are ww w we

~
o

distractions. He asked a few questions about the

. interpretations but took my direction when I suggested to

him that he was the one who needed to make the
interpretation. —

Q. So by and large Mr. Thoupeon had no apparent
difficulty comprehending the questions or sanenguetring
thea? |

ALT don't believe so, and the scoring of the test
doesn't reflect any difficulty with comprehension. :

Qo. So you never reached a point where you had to
read questions to him because he was unable to read thea
and understand thea?

Ae Bo.

Q. ta there anything clea that occurred during
this first visit, thie four-hour visit with ur. + Sem
that we haven't discussed? ii

A. I think we have hit the high pointe.

Q. Did you talk with anyone else at the-prisoa
concerning Mr. Thompson during that firet vieit when you
were out there at River Bend, or was your time at River.
Bend solely limited to dealing with Mr. Thompeon?

A. During that first time, zy time was linited
solely to hia.

Q. Om the 2nd of February this year, you said that
you spent between two and a half and three hours cut at

INTERIM COURT REPORTING
(704) 333-9869

~
- o

34

eee aowsees® w& Ww

the prison?
A. I did.

Q. And what happened during your visit? what did
you do during your visit to the prison on 2 February,
‘997

A. I think the anewer to the question of what I
did is that I observed Mr. Thompsom. I observed
Mr. Thompson in interaction with me, and I observed
Mr. Thompson in interaction with prison officials, and I
observed Mr. Thompson in interaction primarily with
Mr. Chavie. .

-Q. Where did you make these observations?

A. We were in one room the entire time.

Mr. Chavis entered that room with me. It's a smail roca,
kind of a cell-sized room. In fact, I think it is a
cell.

Q. .
~—meaeerr + =

Seminar facilitator for Women in Graduste School
Southeastern Paychologieal Amociation, Weskiagiea, DC, March, 1980, .

Suhan, FE, Chambless, DL, Stern, T., Williams, A, Lifshitz, J, Hazzard, M, & Kelly, L.
The Relationship Between Pubococcygeal Strenngth and Female Orgasmic Response in a
Normal Population Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, NY. Nov, 1980.

Vosk, BN, Chehune, G1, Sion FB. Colin IE. & Wadne B Cite Sal

F 0 & Tacoon, A. The Eft of
a 2, Chae, DI, Nell, C, Cariace 8, vw he

Assocation, Adlants, Georgia, March, 1981.
Chelune, G., Vosk, B, N., Sultan, F. E., Ogden, J. K., Werng,B. Marin Jntoney and .
1981. mas ;
Suhan, F. B., & Johnson, P. Factor

Atlanta, Georgia. March, 1988.
Suhan ¥.B, Long, 7. Kite, 8. A, & Schrum,D. Ta Pen fades Adana

Invited

Sultan, FB, Fennell,J., & Wilson, D. Sexual and Physical Abuse: Breaking the Cycle,
‘are wha Nor Carton Carecoeal Asoc AnmalCoubresey, Graben |
NC, Nqvember. 1983.

-Suhan, FE, Ho

Issues. ied ang wth er Cos Coty Pes Prope a

Training, Boom, NUC., .1986.
Sultan; FE, Long, G. T., Fennell, J, & Wilson, D.

Cyds Invited address to the 116th Annual Conference of the American Correctional
Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, August, 1986.

Sutan, FE, de Tyson, WM. Abused Cheats: What do-we Need ip Know about Battered

omen’s Syndrome ' J Children’s Syndrome in Develop Or

Punishment Plang? loved adres tothe North Carolin Community Peaales Program
Staff Training, a ae November, 1987.

address to the Second National ‘Workshop > on Fenale Offenders, Raliegh, North Carolina,

April, 1987.

Tyson, WM, & Sultan, FE. ~Omrmunmty Penalties Prograrr end
Conference, Winston-Salem, N.C, February, 1988

Sultan, FB, & Lancaster, J, Juvenile/Adult Female Offenders: A Lesacy of Abuse, Invited
workshop at the Southen States Correctional Association, 19th Annual Conference,
Charleston, West Virginia, July, 1988.

Suhan, FE. The Victim's Point of View, Invited Marital
Coaference funded by Wester Crean or Crininal do, Asher

February, 1989.

Sultan, FE, & Clarke-Sayer,R, Women af Risic: A Community Trestment Model for Female
Offenders. Invited workshop at the Fourth Annual North Carolina Community Penalties
Training Conference, Greensbora, NC, March, 1989.

Sultan, FE. Looking Benesth the Surfece: The Assessment Treatment and Placement of Non-
Violent Offenders. Invited moderater for training seminar.at the North Carolina
Penalties Progran Staff Training, Raleigh, N.C, June, 1989. —-

‘Adolescata. Invited ~~ =
Ay seentetien Prychiatric Society, Charlotte, N.C,

> Prison. Keynote address at
sca seedy Epp Dae for Caco, Graber, NA

Sultan, FE. The Rx choloxist ir : ™
vied presetation to a criminal lw seminar sponsored ty the Nords Goole Aes Sess at
Trial Lawyers, Charlotte, N.C, March, 1990.

‘Dayan M, Stein, & Suitan, FE Vitigat
Presentation

‘Britton Watking, C., Haha, T, Lemndowill,D, Sukan, FE Human Bio-Prichio Sod

’ Sultan, FE, | NS LTD

Sultan, FE. Rece rnizing and Assessir otential Mitigat Invited presentation to
be NonhCuotan anon ef Pi Dade Wrighsville Beach, N.C, May, 1990.

Sultan, FE. 2! i si
_ Needs.of Women, Lved preseason tothe 6h Anal Adon Conerno Focus on
Women. Boone, N.C, May, 1992.

ed ronan Aang ope :
_ Greensbore, NLC, September,"1992.

‘Hil, HL & Sultan, FE. Pre: sstimony, Selection

Invited preseatation to'the North C

Suhan, FE. & Engel, G. Presenting Pxpert Testhnomy, ‘The Expert's Permpectivs Invited
presentation to the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, en
September, 1994. ;

Development and Changs, presentation for North Carolina Comenunity
Pealles ropa Cue Devdoper Sel Oe te ou Chapel Ea, NC, Jom,

Sm Fs nates 1 Mua fm Wil Come a
"James Relating to Menaging Women and Girly. Invited presentation

at The Sicth
' —————————eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
; Carolina, November, 1995..-

pec Stind qoesustatida ce The
Shu National Workshop oa Adult and Juvenile Female Offeaders, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, November, 1995.

Sultan, FE. Fi Tack tte taton Soci i Anping Porta Sat Dieta
and Childhood Abuse Issues, Invited mitigation expert training seminar
esr th Csr Desh Psy pnt an Cap ak Nort cin

UNPUBLISHED ARTICLES

Suhtan, FE. Ward behavior changes as a function of patiest groups at a state mental hospital.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1977.

139

FUNDED RESEARCH

The female offender’s adjustment to prison life: A comparison of psychodidactic and
traditional supportive spproaches. North Carolina Correctional Center for Women, Raleigh,
North Carolina, (UNCC Summer Grant), 1983, $1,000.

Lack of intimacy as a factor in depression. (UNCC Summer Grant), 1984, $1,756.
The physcially/sexually abused female inmate: Rr cingtneteey nts aaytiny,

An intensive intervention strategy introduced at the North Carolina Correctional Center
for Women. Z Smith Reynolds Foundation, 1984, $32,600,

Bo in ipten tentng cate py titgad wating ttn teta ame (UNCC
Summer Grant), 1986, $1,950.

psychodidactic abused female offenders
in commumity and instituational coirrectional settings. Treatment program
tt(_—_-'_—_
_ Foundation, 1986-1987, $30,000,
HONORS AND AWARDS.
1982 Willam K Boaréman Award for Outstanding Cinlcal Prychology Graduate Stodeat
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

1981 University Wide Assistantship
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

1980 Award for Outstanding Graduate Student Researcla
Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy

Gradusted Cum Laude
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil

‘Pal CR, Prychology Honor Society _
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Phi Beta Kappa
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil

$9.

3

140

1962 Licensed fa North Carclias os « Practicing Prychologist

1988 Fellow and Diplomate . | |
Scal Prychotherapist

141

ATTACHMENT .
CREGORY THOMPSON EVALUATION : > 1985S Trial Cross-cxamination Testimony of Investogator Floicd
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AS OF 7-22-99

July 15, 1999 Deposition Testimony Theodore H. Blau, Ph.D.
1999 Clinical Testing Data of ‘Theodore H. Blau, Ph.D.

April 6, 1999 Psychological Report of Theodore H. Blau, Ph.D.
November 18, 1994 Affidavit of Gillian Blair, Ph.D.

January 3, 1985 Handwritten Statement of Mr. Gregory Thompeon

January 25, 1985 Statement of Steven Graves

January 27, 1985 and January 28, 1985 Statements of Jay Vickers

January 24, 1985 Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Synopsis of Investigation
7 : January 2, 1985 Supplemental reports of Sgt. Hill and Sgt. Parker a

November 21, 1990-A fidavit of Brock Mehler, Investigator and Mitigation Special :

| January 3, 1985 Map drewn by Mr. Grego-y Thompsoa
cere Hearing Tesfimony of: Gillian Blair, PhD. . ,
Mr. Mike Bryant, Vocational Instructor at RMSE. va 3 Tennessee Department of Corrections Adininistrative Policy No. 503.03

a” — ; = January 9, 1985 Statement of Sgt Phillipa, Tennessee Highway Patrol
1999 Deposition Testimony of ag me , : . | } | _ aay
Jeff Colonge ' i
Seokanten Ie. :; Phd Undated Letters apparently written by Mr. Thorapecn to : Artene Cajutao
August 14, 1985 Deposition Testimony of Clea Watson, Ph.D. |
27, 1985 Evaluation from Middle Menta) Health | -
_ ‘May etait Tennessee Health Institose _ — etn .
Trial Testi f: . .
mes — —— z Undated Poem apparently written by Mr. Thompson to Sandy
Floyd Mack, Sr. cs ;
Cheryl Hammond ; .° we Note indicating that Sgt. Peggy Sawyer found a capsule and a letter from. Mr. Thompson to
Guneta Gen Lat Ls coe eee eee emer ete meade D
Ms. Maybelle Lamar ae
on | Extract of Mr. Gregory Thompson's U.S. Navy records taken from trial counsel's file, post
Me. Curtis James Thompson :
Mr. Earl Weaver ra ’ conviction hearing Exhibis 3 |
OT | April 20, 1988 Pro se Petition for records written by Mr. Gregory Thompson
ste, Rey Howntey : - August 14, 1995 Pro se Motion and A {fidavit filed by Mr. Gregory Thompson to drop all further
Ms. Arlene Cajulae death penalty appeals
Mr. Jim Creighton

Suppression Hearing Testimony of +9 Crgery Thome

S.A. Eubanks
D.A. Charron

Transcript of proceedings conceming Mr. Thompson's request to participate in his triad
July 1985 Motion to allow the Defendant to participate at tial
Supplemental motion for psychiatric examination and neurological examination

Pages |-6 of the February 27, 1989 Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion an direct appeal outlining
the facts of the case > oe

Tennessee Department of Corrections Mcdication Records for Mr. Gregory Thompsoa
continuous 1986 to February, 1999

Tennessee Deparunent of Corrections Administrative, Medical, and Mental Health Records for
Mr. Gregory Thompson continuous 1985 two February, 1999

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA
GREGORY THOMPSON, )
Petitioner, .
) Case No: 4:98-CV-4
v. (Judge Edgar)
RICKY BELL, Warden,
Respondent. )

AFFIDAVIT

COMES NOW BARRY M. CROWN, Ph.D. and, being swom upon his oath, states end
effies as follows:

1. Afflart ts Icensed psychologist in the State of Florida. Affient’s curriculum vies
is attached hereto as Affidavit Exhibit A A list of all cases in which Affiant has testified at thal
or in deposition within the past four years is attached hereto as Affidevt Exhibt 8.

2 Affidavit has been retained by counsel for Petitioner, Gregory Thompson to
render an opinion regarding Mr. Thompson's mental health. A staternent of the estimated

compensation to be paid to Affiant for his study and testimony ls attached hereto as Affideva
Exhbe C.

om Affiart hee reviewed voluminous background materials regarding Mr. Thompson

which have been provided to him by counsel for Mr. Thompson. Such materials ere evellable
for Inspection and/or copying upon request.
‘ Affiant has conducted e clinical evaluation of Mr. Thompson including the

sforementioned review of materials, « clinical interview, and the administration of the following
test instruments:

Shipley insttute of Living Scale

» ee

RENE HEtT em = ~~

G-F-W Auditory Selective Attention Test

Category Test

Kaufman Neuropsychological Assessment Procedure

Luria Memory Test

Rehar-indlane Aphasia Screening Test

Rey-Osterrelth Complex Figure Test

Trallmaking Test (A & 8)

Word Generafion-F/A/B

Finger Oscillation Test

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test |

5 = The resufts of these tests indicate that Mr. Thompson suflers from significant
auditory processing deficits. in addition, Mr. Thompson demonstrates impaired simple
Concentration, stiention and mental flexdbilty as well es an abnormal variation between
dominate and non-dominate finger oscMlation. te .

6 = While these results provide indicia of organic brain damage, Affiant’s cfirtoal
observations and review of pertinent beckground material suggest that such organicily is
secondary to other mental impairments.

7. tle Affiant’s clinical impression that Mr. Thompson suflers from « major mental

disorde: thought disorder, to wit, thet he suffers from schizosflectve dleorder-bipolar eubtype

with organic components.

8. Persons suffering from schizosfiective disorder-bipolar subtype demonstrate
episodes of delusions, hallucinations, disorganimed speech (e.9., trequent deraliment er
incoherence), and/or grossty disorgemizec’ 01 swltixtonic behavior concurrent with e major mario
Or mixed episode or such an episioun' joge"’.s: with e major depressive episode. Onest of the
disorder typically occurs in eerty, acutthood.

‘
—)

~~ a Soe ees ee

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE )

ubscribed, swom to and
a ft July, 1908. acknowledged before me by Barry M. Crown on thie

——— ee, Owe fe

ECUCATION

Ph.D. Florida State University, 1969
Post-Doctoral Fellow in chistry. (Pay eT Harvard Med-
ical School, Massachuset Hospi 1969-1970

CERTIFICATIONS ;

Licensed chologist (P¥ 002131), Board of Psychological
Exaniners re state of Hi ori ve a

Cagecsiee Sire oeiesise, Plorida Association of Practicing

Diplomate, American Board Professional Neuropsychology
Examinations ttee, 1994-1998)

veg PR py 1998-1999)
Diplomate, ‘American Board ic Exaniners

Diprenste, at pa Board of Ry Medicine

oma Amer Academy o Managenert :

Certified Addictions Specialist, American Acadeny of Health
Care Providers in the AlUdictive Disorders |

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Forensic ag American pa Ay RR, of Porensic Psychology
Fanily There Thetitute for Juveni Chicago
SPECT Brain maging, Medical College of ete

Courtesy Professor of hol
Florida International versity

unct Associate Professor of Psychistry
,- of Mieni School of Medicine

PREVIOUS ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
Boston University; University of Illinois School of Medicine
OTHER EXPERIENCES (seLecten)

Research Coordinator, Governor's office, State of ylertés
Clinical Director, et i National Drug abuse Freining Center
Associate Director, National gy

Co-Director, Child Abuse University of bog School

of Medicine, ty Menor aj fiospital
Head, Neuropsychology Group, léren's Howpital

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

American porgnes good, Aacootetione Psychologi-
= ¥ ions orida Psychol heal Associs

oe Society pacczese S aw oe eas Psycho-

y (Pe ow)? Metions Academy of ’ at

iH of ofeseional ~~ AA +r '

of Neurology (Affiliate); International

aon Society; soci of Behavioral Medicine; Soc of

Nuclear a Amer Society of Neurorehabili :

Society pored Affiliete); Society of
(Pelle) s Aner toon or Marital and Family Therepy

BARRY 4. CROWK, 92D. wo ASSOOATER,. PA asemnoess aver oasw

BARRY M. CROWN, Ph.0. PENTHOUSE SUITE 310 7800 RED ROAD SOUTH MeAM, FLOPEDA 33148 (305) 665-0771

=.

rr a

Barry M. Crown, Ph.D. .

| have made a reasonable stiempt to gather this information. My records are not kept by date nor ’
are iRigation cases kept seperate from other clinical cases.

Cases Invotved (trial /deposition) during the last five yeara_

Stout v. Bratt, Limperts, & Cross 90-31776 G7
Morales v. OQutane 91-45428 CA 08

Wood v. Ring 92-1308

Carlisle v. Carlisle 91-61479 CA 28

Gorzalez v. Prestressed Systerns 92-006565 (25)

|
ea
j
i

Gables & KGnney 91-51853 CA G1

i
;

Perry v. tet mye ert.
a ney oy CORA
ortaine v. @ al. 9205010
Seams «Thanh Ls Soho k “ ‘ °
Gorzalez v. Parkview Pt. Condo Assoc. 051-758-4434 i
Fe OE AEN CAN
Pierre v. Naples Community Hosp. 90-3317 CA 61
State v. Bates 62-081 j
Wareing v. USA 8. Dist. FL-Civ-Marcus
Cartson v. Brown, Fountain Engineering 95-02868 CA 1%
Vernat & Vincerd v. Uriv of Miami, of af. 93-1602 CA 28
ee eas OR
Gordon v. :

Corcoran v. Saicheck 94-4364 (19 :
Portanova, ef al. v. Coce Cola, of al. 94-02499 04 ’

Sracncer ATTACHMENT

: —"
Brown v. Wel 04-16284 CA 08 °

Taylor and Public Health @ af 92-240809@
aes ts adscanece '

:
i

. wr we.

180 ist

? '

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 00000T4 ies
PROBLEM ORIENTED - PROGRESS RECORD

4 | a

“SUBJECTIVE O=OBJECTIVE A@ASSESSNENT = P=PLAN =: ISINTERVENTION §«©=-_s SE VALUATION
Riverbend Uni 2 cae Note Bete: sae
Patiest: Thompson, Greg Mote Printedom: SHM4 a 125741PM
Medical record 6: 108408 | Treatment Dey ose

Patent reports stable Interval, though he feels more preoccupied with “his pest.” No reports of sudiiory 7
marae, Ne cuts i eaters cca oer sich haved wh evn was Ove ba
requiring mulliple medications. . | se

a
Me dicstioa Route Med Dose A Necs PM HS Comments
Mead PO 688 6B 860.80 0D0 0.00 10008
@ ~~ Service Provided Durstica

ATTACHMENT

5”

- a

Inmate: Vherpoow, Aug
—— id , ee
Referral Dete: (777 Fecility: LASS tresteect Stetest Vel Custody States: Meg

Assigned Trestwent Program: —Oulgt Tresteest Plen Forweleticna Dete: _ oo

Initia] Tresteest Plent » Opdeted Trestwest Pian: x 7

Presenting —- A.H. porecsit stullane

” 9000228

MENTAL HEALTS TREATMENT PLAN

axis =OVh

tusber: (OF Y06 nos; (3 Mol Sex: Ar

154

| room | meus | ‘vous
bir y evr Then ABD

yit

Ape tht

Receiving Facility Provider:

Continue Current Plan: ,_. Modification:

O-*=inal: Ineete’s Health Record
Programestic Record
Vardem

CR-S326 (Rev. 4/92)

Page 2 of 2 Pages

ATTACHMENT

“HH”

PROBLEM ORIENTED - PROGRESS RECORD
noe: _| Nope Greaney yosm,_ |B 6

B.

Do Mot Write on Back

Discharged:

Instructions to Patient:

Pectent con rata tos {Landy
Patient will be fol 1 Yes_y/ Mo When & Where ne — :
geore

White - Health Record

-. --4

158}

EMERGENCY ROM CARE ts 2515 a eed ne then pied, Mug tyin 0 B46
ame fanber “2 L404 Prysical Findings: misto 4e lt on fr

Physical : & ®__@r) Date of Last Tetanus Shot: Tetanus Toxcid: Yes Me

Date of Last Tetanus Shot: Tetanus Toxoid: Yes im .
- —EE —— Orlet Omplaines Oe. caches antl ite LE) Steers
Ortat Complaints Aad Dralreet. tthe wsste estsd Dus | :

Patient can return to:_
Patient will be followed: Yes +“No_ When & there

Waite - fealth Record hg Moen Fe

159

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ;
ACCIDENT/TRAUMATIC INJURY REPORT

' Name of Person Injured _£_=LAklté Lhe

Last re middle Number

Eaployee Cimarsdstucent Visitor
Institution where hecident (Khjusy occurred Z sf

Location within Institution where Accident/Injury occurred _ AZo ZF _

Date of Injury la a-hh Time of Injury 2% |

Date of Treatment \a- 19: BE Time of Treatment rt »i- a.

Subject's Version of nceident/injury_ Mi OO SS, MN, Mat

Witness/Third Party's Version of Accident/Injury, if any

—_

Weapon, Property or Equipment involved “ Yes io

If yes, specify SY.

Description of Injury/Diegnosisxm SE As o 9 GO Bn BULK

sposttions _v Treated by tne tutional Health Persorne)

rei ee to Community Health Care
Fecil for ocutpetient treatment only

List Faciiity —
Transported to Community Hospitel for
Inpatient Treatment

~—"Tist Facility ~~

Otvr - txplein
Did Death result from Accident/Injury? Yes_ 2 Ro

Signature of Examiner Daté ~da- \LA

Title
Origine): Seslth Record ’
Copys Clinic File dik
* srtew of Health Services wis Warden/Director cCa-2592 )

161

Pe FA
—
;
, ~
Wl I? Lean A UP LPF CS
Yl Cilaeed: Clap yw (6 Le

t.
TONESSEE IEPARTIENT OF CORRECTION
PRCBLEM ORIENTED ~ PROGRESS RECORD |
wee: TKanpsen Frercey wer: 2406 _
~~ FORMATS ~~" Problem Ninber and Title;
8 = SUBJECTIVE *O= CBJECTTZ A= ASSESS@2g

164

Roy Deel, M.D. Wn

Psychiatric Consultant .
Riverbend Maximus Security Inetitute

Mt. Greg Thompsos =

Dait 2

Prisos @:1086406

Nc. Thompsom is @ 30-year-old bieck male iast interviewed by
me spproximately 2 veeks ego. At that time he vee noted te
be Giepisying sective evidence of peychosis ané menia with
parked grandiosity eaé delusional thought contest. Se
stated that he had written many of Michsel Jackson'e .
previous songs end vee 8 sillionsire, aad @ grest investor
as well se 8 famous writer and artiet. At thet tise he sise
hed very pressured end capid speech vith marked
tengentiality and looseness of associations. It wae
éitficult to sesess, bet felt at the tine he vas possibiy
responding te euditory hellucinationse ead sppeareé te be
sctively peychotic. Be vas hovever woking ne threats of
self herm of represeating any sggressica towards other
inédividusie end éeciined to take medication voluntariiy. te
414 not meet the criteria for involuatery medication.

Om 11/15/88 he spoke te one of the sersing steft, Mei
Phylilie McEver,R88 and informed her thet he was wiliiag at
thet time te teke medication. Se was oréered Trilsten 8-16
mgs. pobié ae he vould take it, Lithiem 300ege. pobid and
Kiconopisa ing. pedid. Since thet tise he hes refused te teke
the Lithica, bat bee tekes Kionopia asd Triistes.

Om our exam today he states thet the medication hes ‘helped
hie te siow hie thoughts éovwn, begia te be abie te write
mesic once sgein, aa@ bis mental states ves very remerkebig
‘aitereé. Be shoves os signe of eps or excessive sedation, |
bet hie epeech wee less pressured, iese repid, oné sonevhat
more goal directe@. Ee does hovever rensian very tangestiest
ané grendicee ead coatinees to prociain hinseif se sn
inveateor of the ethenel car se vell se 8 song vrites ter
Micheel Jeckson ené@ auperovs country-vestersn susicisss. Se
continues to display some irritability directed towards the
other inmates eaé staff as vell es costiased cbeessione’
thovghte of byper-sexesility,. he éoes however setice «
éecresse in these since beginning os the sedicatica.

Os interview he ves siso somewhat guaeréed shout this, bet
61@ reilste 2-3 episodes of severe éepresesion in the pest st
which time he wild become tearfel and withérevwa. Thie
stetes thet he prefers te be “byperactive*® ané@ 614 not viek
te discuss the depressive periods of his life. My
impression of thie individual is that he most iikxeiy hes 8
bipoler affective diseréer and continaves te be very
grandiocee and hypomenic. I ée believe hie active psychosis
with the exception of his éelesional theught costest ie
resolving, ané@ wieh te continee hie om Triisfon tags.
poqeams, i6mge. pohe, #6 vell ae Kionopin ing. poquaem and

22mg. pohe. ff have diecoatinved the Lithiem since he éoes “”
not vwieh to take thie et the current time. se will be \).
folloved on a 2-3 week basis and no other changee will
wade eat thin tine.

165

i F es

0000031

- and Title:
8 = SUBJECTIVE O = OBJECTIVE A = ASSESSENT P= PLAN
Date | No. | Code] J : en be i
2} ae :
= . a

ae

‘ ; ae - = >
De Not Write on Beck : 7

171

S“SUBJECTIVE O=OBJECTIVE AMASSESSMENT = PPL T= INTERVENTION EmEVAIUATION
Date | Tine] ne . aa
- com oe
' ad
4 9 - r= -
» 4 "J
| . ‘ .
7 - :
i weet
=} } 3
ar ‘De Met Weite oa Sack
584 (Rew 6/90) a

rDa- 458

© tees DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIL.

PROBIEMN ORIENTED - PROGRESS RECORD

we: Jhuompan. IArperrs

OOCL i 4,

women LEGS

S=SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE A@ASSESSMENT P=P LAN I= INTERVENTION E=EVALUATION

Prob.j
Dete | Time! no.

a vel EPs

~wewwid'’

4 — —
—f# :

it

=e AEE ITT
iy. “ £

Ses
a“ -
L Do Not Write on Beck wi

1884 (Rev 6/90) RDA- 1438

17

(eed ttre ba . 7 ATTACHMENT

; i —
;
tt . . a
= ~
a : ——
et | 2
; Do Wot Write on Beck ,
ithe
179

erieesesssinsg”
, . ° 000647
~ , . 0009167 . ; TENN” Wc€ aw A OF CORRE® - .
, \.edication Administration Record ~~ ,
> PHYSICIAN’S ORDERS ms : rs poe 08406 bore GARGS

Month FEBRUARY __ Yeer :_1905

Pen Vk 2S0 ms + PO bhe x 7 J
A Fufoml 3 e wii 54-6 has Pre
$. FeFer te Ment! in AM) Lipp M0 7y.Q 212016.

et) DAG!
HE Mpa lito pn
i f

v

¥LE1O Wi aml Vee ey ne
@Q “erent 25O7r tro: P6K ww 7s IMR
@—_ OQ tw Ft Te pp #4 rant Bw * Phys |e

TENK_, SEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRE ‘ON | 0000648"

, Medication Administratton Record _ RMS
e Thom psan_ Grea number IOZ4O6 _ tocstion AnZOP _
eat * ret rl wane . ;
Responsible Physician Boa tri ght_/Thamas__ Month Zea + __- voor 1549S
{5 ' |
mR U | Ti] i] i]t] tyaqa 2)
TP MEDICATIONS 17}; |2]3)«]sJ617]elolo|ss2/3|4Jsjel7 le lejojiiaiaiajelel7 letelo
i Acthed = PO ECC ,
T 1A ¥ ah 2 tT :
or: Boutvi4 ht Cos aH nF , + Err 4 -
| = . : + , 2 . e + | .
. SU REUSREUSERRSUEEEORECECOLS ATTACHMENT
tt ad i
Or. - | - e
ScoSeeeun :
4 i ; . .
! T :
Or: lit
Tt.Le ABo
i i jz}
| 3 2
4 ~~ ., ' : + ¥
4 } hd
i ‘}
feaeeas
Ty = ri
Dr. | iF | D
an aalasapalayalalapdi2teiai2ei2i2i2i2i2i2ia
34 gloliizisiaisi6i718l91
ea] ms | os cu eon T
— z 1 * - ——
a. . |
im C

— . af ed

( 't@R 1% @fVO mPY ecto RY NECY 1 PES FRIwr Sere see were

DIFF. POD DR TO UNIT f{.

STAFE NAME:
TITLE:

SITE:
NOTE DATE:
NOTE:

COMMENT :

‘47 tee

REC'D A DISC. FOR THROWING PHONE AT OFFICER +

DONALDSON, CHERYL

CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR

RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION

64/87/1995 TIME: 14:06:00

SPOKE W/DFFENDER AT JAIL/INSTITUTION- SEE COMMENTS

0000798-

T/M tS VERY HELPFUL TO STATF, OW DOORS WHEN HE SHTULD BE WORKING, CELI.
IS NEAT AND CLEAN. P/T COHM. CLEANER WHO WORKS WELL. @ JOVIAL FELLOW
AND NEVER COMPLAINS WHEN TOLD TO DO SOKETHING. POLITE AND HELPFULL.
WORKED HARD CLEANING FREPARING FOR THE AUDIT AND THIS’ WAS A GREAT
‘ASSET TO THE UNIT.

BIO1MAC TONIG 05/14/1996
RMSI CONTACT HISTORY ‘TIME: 10:04
DONACHO4 FROM: 09/05/1992 TO: 65/14/1998 PACE: 25

DHIS ID: 00106406 THOMPSON, GREGORY F
STATUS: ACTIVE SEX: M DATE OF BIRTH: 12/13/1964
RACE: BLACK ee Pe

- DaTE:

STAFF NAME: DONALDSON, CKERYL
TITLE: CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR
SITE: RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION |
NOTE DATE: 64/06/1995 TIME: 14:00:60
NOTE: SPOKE W/OFFENDER ATF JAIL/INSTITUTIOM- SEE COMMENTS
COMNENT :

I/M CAME OUT TO MAKE LEGAL CALL BUT HAD THE TELEPHONE wu. WRONG. I/*

REC'D 2 DISC. UN 4/5795-1.DISRESPECT-CALLED FEMALE OFFICER BITCH AND .
EXCESSIVE USE OF CALL BUTTON. I/M REPORTS HE CAN NOT SLEEP DUE TO NOTS
E ON POD. I/M APPEARS TO NEED PSYCH ATTENTION BUT REFUSES. WE DISCUSSE

D COURT, HOW HE USE TO ACT, TSP ,PRI

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. AND DIAGWOST

STAFF NOME: DONALDSON, CHERYL
TITLE: CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR
SITE: RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION 0000797
NOTE DATE: 04/42/1995 TIME: 13:60:00
NOTE: SPOKE W/OFFENDER AT JAIL/INSTITUTION- SEE CONMENTE
COMMENT :

I/M LYING TN BED WATCHING TV. NO GROUPS BUT WOULD L"KE TG ATTEND THE

SUNRISE SERVICE. ASKED ME TO CALL DENTAL DUE TC HIS TOOTH ACHE. I ADVI
SED SGT. PHIILIPS8 TO CALL.
BIO1 MAC TOMIS DATE: 05/14/1996
RBI CONTACT HISTORY TIME: (6:64:
DONACHO4 FROM: 69/05/1992 TO: ©@3/714/1996 PAGE : 24
MIB ID: 060106406 ‘THOMPSON, GREGORY
STATUG: ACTIVE SEX: MM . DATE OF BIRTH: 12/13/1968
RACE: BLACK
‘BTAFF NAME: DONALDGOM, CHERYL
TITLE: CORRECT IT NAL COUNSELOR
SITE: RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUT 0M
MOTE DATE: 64/12/1995 TIME: 10:60:86
NOTE: ans WU/OFFENDER AT JATL/ INSTITUT ION~ SEE CCHMENTS
COMMENT :

MT aGt tik. WE VERDOLLY CURSED GUT PEWALE GFETCER 00@ CONTINUED 0 |
PUSH EMERG.CALL BUTTON. HIS PAST RECDRD SHOWS HE CAW BE POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS-SECURITY RISK. SELF MUTILATOR W/SCARS. OM 4/6/9S-HIB SPEECH

S$ ,KOW HE CAN NOT CONCENTRATE TO WRITE OR DRAW. KE WANTS TO MOVE TO U/'
» RAPID RAMBLING GPEECH, FACTAL AFFECT NOT APPRO., THINKS OTHERS TALK

WAS RAPID AND RAMBLING AND HE JUMPED FROM ONE SUBJECT TO THE.NEXT EYES

ARE RED DUE TO LACK OF SLEE® AND HE WEARS DARK SUNTLASSES ADMITS TO HE.

ARING AND REACTING TO VOICES IN THE PAST AND REFUSES MEDG. AND SEES NO

ABOUT 4iM AND HEARING VOICES IN THE PAST. MAY NEED INTERVENTION SOON.

NEED TO SEE PSYCH SERVICES. HIS FACIAL AFFECT APPEARS FLAT AND HODD
SWINGS ARE PRESENT. CAUTION NEEDS TO BE USED.

STAFF NAME:
TITLE:
SITE:

DONALDSON, CHERYL.

CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR

RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION

64/12/1995 TIME: 09:56:60

SPOKE W/OFFENDER AT JAIL/INGTITUTION- SEE COMMENTS

STAFF NAIM: BRANDON, HOWARDS
TITLE: INMATE RELATIONG COORDINATOR
SITE: RIVERBEND MAXIMUM SECURITY INETITUTION
NOTE DATE: 64/63/1995 TIME: 12:45:00
NOTE: SPOKE W/OFFENDER AT JAIL/INSTITUTION- SEE COMMENTS
COMMENT :

INMATE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLTHS.

STAFF NAME: SRANDON, HOWARD
TITLE: INMATE RELATIGNS CCOPDINATOR

181

NOTE DATE:
8 NOTE:

‘COMMENT :
PLAN TO GUBMIT CR-3431 TO MENTAL HEALTH PSYCH SERVICES os HAVE I."
EVALUATED DUE TO HIS COMPLAINTS OF LACK OF SLEE> ZECAUSE OF NOTSE AMD
OTHERS SELIBERATELY DOING TYINGS TO AGGRAVATE HIM. HE CAN NOT CONCENTR
ATE AND ADMITTED TO HEARING VDICES AND REACTING TC THEM TN THE PAST .HT

ATTACHMENT

wy tg,

183;

000CiU7

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
» PROBLEM ORTENTED - PROGRESS RECORD AMSI

, A .
j *
3 =
p . 2
= ate
T =
De Not Write oa Steck
584 (Rev 8/9) : , . ms

184

ATTACHMENT

—

185

ee — —_—— oo+m

€ AESSEL DEPAETHENT OF CORRBCT! GOOCICS
PROBIEM OR LENTED - PROGRESS RECORD

Dete | Time .-
gash re TZ bi how
Vie in Oe - 4 Che “Le :
4ict. oe = =
LIT
~ 4a fF y A o/ ,
aun kT ‘s
rs
= aC 3
An ; g
= = nd 2 .
= " A~« ; |
? i) ,
7 ad
. Be Not Write on Beck . Pa
R-1684 {Rev 8/90) ; ad

é. ANESSEL DEPARTMENT OF CORRECT? 0000510 i

PROBLEM ORIENTED - PROGRESS RECORD , | cose eueteee @ caine. 060613

0 Zp Lega ee

une: Shiormpac, Mtnpers =

| = S*SUBJECTIVE O-OBJECTIVE APASSESSMENT P=PLAN J= INTERVENTION E=CVALUATION
P ~
Date | Tine r~

S-SUBJECTIVE O=OBJECTI VE A@ASSESSMENT P=PLAN 1# INTERVENTION E“EVAIUATION

‘ . Prob
= L - Dete | Time! No .
} = ac lpt ,
SI - rs ° _
sane’ Fy .
. = . | a *
° =| = =
. . i — .
| a
/ - = | ~
> = —

. Be Not Write on Sack _ |

884 (Rev 6/90) RDA- 1458

De Not Write on Beck
8-188 (Rev 8/90) acteens
is

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
© PRORIEM ORIENTED - PROGRESS RECORD

; "~wvi“2€

S-SUBJFCTI VE O=OBIJECTI VE. A@ASSESSMENT PePLAN I= INTERVENT 10" E=EVALUATION

eo ctr —_ -

De Not Write om Beck
- 1684 {Bev 1/9)

Regu

ATTACHME] T

| “nq”?

190.

temece: TAomtion _ rtezony Number: LQ2R4 0b DOB: Lf. Sex: Lak
Leet Firet/ = Riddde | (Derm ta
Fecility: Sf Trostment stetes: LViZL Custody Stetus: TTAX

Tresteent Pleas Forwuletice Dete: CA.

or, Updeted Tresteest Plan: YEE.

Referral Date:
Assigned Treatment Program:

Initiel Trestecst Files: A,

esenting Problem: :

sr
s 44.8 AD -f Y a al De at -* (A a

ze. 2 Cr A)
ay — Val«# Z wie S saanen ‘ nf? Sf 7 = . _ .
-
Treks / Yi 4a fA LS4OO eid

4/ . “ xy oe “ / a A 4h
54/3 A Rul A Lall Shai mon tot Jere hw d ae
eS depend tun aang OU Deprta Xt C bh Md ZO

Lm. Are Bervenge 74. (OMEN fw
Axis iI _Psyctene Dismeoce pias,
n/o = ;
Axis II: "Tee Eered:
r/o
axis 111: _ VQ Ditenteg,
R/0

EAE Te DE CE
= Dal 2 MALS ld Re , wl ry ed va ne Set hes j
” (A L4leh'/ 9. +p, . a_i od oo

WL Sd Oo TOR “2

-
el

Rs

’
L d Green, Clerk

216 _=- =
217

APPENDIX

—

218

a

01/21/2084 15:28 6155327731 CRIM JUST DIV PACE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE
IN RE: GREGORY THOMPSON ) COFFEE COUNTY
) ORIGINAL APPEAL NO.

) M1987-00027-SC-MWR-DD

MOTION TO SET EXECUTION DATE
Pursuant to Rule 12.4(A), Rusles of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the State of
Tennessee respectfully requests that the Court set an execution date for Gregory
Thompson. In support of this motion, the State relies on the following
1. Thompson was convicted in 1985 by a Coffee County jury of first degree:

murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the judgment, Stats ». Thompson,

768 S.W.24 239 (Tenn. 1989), and the United States Supreme Court denied a petition
for a writ of certiorari. Thompson v. Tennesses, 497 U.S. 1031 (1990).

2. In 1990, Thompson sought post-conviction relief in the trial court, which
conducted a hearing, made findings, and denied relief. The judgment was affirmed in
Thompson v. State, 958 S.W.2d 156 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (app. denied Oct. 20,
1997).

3. In 1998, Thompson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The district court
gassed summary jolguens to fever of the wasten end Geutued the poten. The

219

€1/21/2064 15:28 6155327731 CRIM JUST DIV PRE

United States Court of Appeals for the Sich Circuit affirmed the district court's
judgmera. Thompson y. Bell, 315 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2003)(reh. denied Mar. 12, 2008).
The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari on December
1, 2003. Thompson v. Bel, S40 US. __, 124 S.Cr. 804 (2003) (No. 03-5759), and denied
a petition for rehearing on January 20, 2004. Thompson ». Bell, S.Ct. _, 2004 WL
76656 (2004).

4. Thompson has completed the standard three-tier appeals process, making
the setting of an execution date appropriate. Se Rule 12.4(A). The State therefore
requests that an execution date be set no later than thirty (30) from entry of the Court's
order pursuant to Rule 12.4(E) (“The Court shall set the date of execution no less then
thirty (30) days from the date of the order granting the State’s motion.”).

For the reasons stated, a new execution date should be set.

61/21/2084 15:28 6155327791 CRIM JUST DIV PAGE 04/65

Attorney of
P.O, Box 20207
Tennessee 37202-0207
Phone: (615) 741-3487
Pax (615) 532-7791

Jynn.smith@state.tnus
BPR No 16514

€1/21/2084 15:28 6155327791 CRIM JUST DIV PAGE 05/06

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Motion has been
farwantad via Pecsenie end Fles-Class US. wall, postage propatd on tts toa of! hay
of January 2004 to:

Dana C. Hansen Chavis
Federa] Defender Services

of Ear Tennese, Ine APPENDIX
530 South Gay Street, Suite 900 :
Knoxville, TN 37902 *

Phone: (865) 637-7979
FAX: (865) 637-7999

The undersigned attorney of record prefers to be notified of any orders or opinions of
the Court by Facsimile at (615) 532-1971.

=" ,

ce C Michael Layne
District Artorney General
14th Judicial District
307 S. Woodland St.
P.O. Box 147
Manchester, TN 37439-0147

No. 00-5516

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY THOMPSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.

RICKY BELL, Warden,

ee ee ed

Respondent-Appellee.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER APPOINTMENT ORDER

Respondent-Appellee, Ricky Bell, requests that this Court reconsider its
order filed July 26, 200. granting petitioner’s ex parte motion for authorization to
expand the appointment of counsel to include state court proceedings. In support
of this motion, respondent states as follows:

1. On July 26, 2002, this Court entered an order granting a motion by
petitioner’s counsel, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc., to
expand its appointment to include state court proceedings. (Copy attached as
Appendix A) Because petitioner’s counsel filed the motion ex parte, without

proper service upon respondent as required under Fed. R. App. P. 25(b) (“Unless a

ee

—-

Tule requires service by the clerk, a party must, at or before the time of filing a
paper, serve a copy on the other parties to the appeal or review”), respondent's

- counsel did not have an opportunity, prior to entry of the order, to file a response

in opposition to petitioner’s motion.

2. On June 16, 2003, this Court, sitting en banc in Paul Gregory House v.
Ricky Bell, No. 00-6136, entered an order addressing the propriety of expanding
the appointment of Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc. to
include representation of Paul Gregory House in state court proceedings.’ In
House, as in this case, Federal Defender Services sought to have its appointment
expanded, and thus paid by the federal government, for state court representation.

3. After reviewing the pertinent authority regarding the scope of
appointments under Section 848(q\(4)(B), including decisions of the Fifth, Eighth
and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, this Court held, “[w]e agree with our sister
circuits that Section 848(q)(4)(B) must be construed narrowly and agree with their
conchusion that the statute does not authorize federal compensation for
representation in state proceedings.” (emphasis added) The Court thus
concluded:

"Respondent notes that the motion in House v. Bell, No. 00-6136, was also filed ex parte
without proper service upon respondent's counsel as required under Fed. R. App. P. 25.

The rule is sirmple. The two representations shal] not mix. The state

shal] be responsible for state proceedings, and the federal government petitioner, Gregory Thompson.

shal] be responsible for federal proceedings. As the weight of

authority does not support House's request to have Federal Defender Respectfully subenitied,
represent him in the state court proceedings at the expense of the

federal government, House's motion to expand Federal Defender’s PAUL G. SUMMERS
representation beyond its federal court responsibilities is denied. Attorney General & Reporter

See Order, House v. Bell, No. 00-6136, at p. 4 (Copy attached as Appendix B).
4. Under this Court’s decision in House, supra, expansion of Federal

‘ L. SMITH

Defender Service’s representation in this case to include state conservatorship Senior Counsel

Criminal Justice Division
proceedings is not authorized by federal statute, and the Court's July 26, 2003, P.O. Box 20207

Nashville, Tennessee 37202
order to the contrary should be reconsidered. Moreover, the state courts have (615) 741-3487

B.P.R. No. 16514
already appointed both an attorney (Beth Boone, Esq. of Willis and Knight Law
Firm in Nashville, Tennessee) and a conservator (Frank R. Freeman, Esq. of
Nashville, Tennessee) at state expense to represent petitioner's interests in the

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
conservatorship proceedings. Thus, expansion of the federal appointment to
I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing has been sent by

Tennessee state proceedings is not only improper under federal law, but

first-class mail, postage prepaid to Dana C. Hansen, Assistant Federal Public

| | Defender, 530 S. Gay Street, Suite 900, Knoxville, TN 37902, on the _J71L day of

WHEREFORE, respondent requests, in light of the June 16, 2003, order of |

: August, 2003.
the en banc Court in House v. Bell, No. 00-6136, that the Court reconsider its
previous order expanding the appointment of Federal Defender Services of Eastern | CL) £C4 =
L. SMITH
Tennessee, Inc., to include state court conservatorship proceedings involving the Senior Counsel

No. 00-5516
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY THOMPSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
RICKY BELL, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eet ee”

APPENDIX A

JM-31-2002 WED 05:47 Ali FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICE FAK NO. 885463747999 P.
" Case No: 00-5516

===" COPY

ORDER
FILED
' JUL 2 8 2002
GREGORY THOMPSON
Petitioner - Appellant LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

v.
RICKY RELL, warden
Respondent - Appellee

Upon consideration of the cx parte motion filed by counsel for

authorization to expand the appoiatment to include state court proceedings,

It is that the motion be and it horeby is GRANTED.

7, Greea, Clerk v

No. 00-5516

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY THOMPSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.

RICKY BELL, Warden,

ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee See”

Respondent-Appellee.

APPENDIX B

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuart to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

ELECTRONIC CITATION: FED Ape. 0196P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 03a0196p.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PAUL GREGORY HOUSE,
Petitioner-Appellans,
. No. 00-6136
RICKY BELL, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.

Filed: June 16, 2003

Before: MARTIN, Chief Circuit Judge; MERRITT,
BOGGS, NORRIS BA

' DAUGHTREY, MOORE, CLAY, and GILMAN,

Circuit Tudges.

———— + ee epeere

tr

2 House v. Bell No. 00-6136

Tennessee Supreme Court on three certified questions. A writ
of certiorari is also pending before the Supreme Court of the
United States. Nevertheless, House has initiated litigation in
order to obtain relief in the state courts of Tennessee on
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, withholding
exculpatory evidence, and misconduct by the police and the
prosecutor. House seeks to have Defender’s
appointment expanded and therefore paid by the federal
for the state court representation. After review
: a ete a th = Lt wey
ection not authorize the expanded appointment.
Accordingly the motion is denied.

As the facts surrounding House's conviction were fu
Sanne Se ees ena, Rate 0 Sn aS ,
769-71 (6th Cir. }, we will not reiterate them bere. The
sole question before us concerns whether Section 848(q) will
allow Federal Defender to be for any state work.
Section 848(q)(4)(B) authorizes the appointment of counse]
for any indigent defendant in any post conviction proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (seeking to vacate or set aside a state
death sentence), as well as for federal death sentences under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. The statute also provides that a defendant
is entitled to “the apo such other services in

ordance with 6 and (9)." 21
USC. § B4B(QLN).” Secuca SAN(GN8)' provides that

motions for new trial, ons for writ of
certiorari to the Supreme United States, and
al] available post-conviction process, together with .
applications for stays of execution and other i
motions and procedures, and shal] also the
defendant in such competency i and
proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be
available to the defendant.

PUBLISHER’S NOTE:

PAGE(S)25" 29+ MISSING IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

_ APPENDIX

wes ay

Case No: 00-5516
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ORDER
FILED
J
. _ UL 2 6 2002
Petitioner - Appellant LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

We
RICKY BELL, Warder
Respondent - appellee

Upon consideration of the ex parte motion filed by counsel for

authorization to expand the appointment to include state court proceedings,

It is ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is GRANTED.

APPENDIX

“M”’

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY THOMPSON, )
)
Petitioner-Appellant )
)
v. ) No. 2:00-5516
) | DEATH PENALTY CASE
RICKY BELL, Warden )
: )
Respondent-Appellee )

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
APPOINTMENT ORDER

COMES NOW Petitioner-Appellant, Gregory Thompson, through
undersigned counsel and submits the following response to Respondent's motion
to reconsider appointment order:

BACKGROUND

This Court will remember that it issued an order expanding Federal

Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc.’s (FDSET) representation of Mr.

Thompson to include state court proceedings. State court litigation was initiated

by FDSET in order to obtain public records and medical records of Mr. Thompson

from the prison which the State would not provide and which could not be

"otherwise obtained.' Suit was also filed to challenge the State’s appointment of a

conservator to Mr. Thompson for the purpose of forcibly medicating him? These
issues were spawned from and are directly related to his federal habeas corpus
proceedings and any upcoming proceedings under Ford v. Wainwright.
INTRODUCTION

This Court's order of July 26, 2002, should not be disturbed and the instant
motion should be denied because (1) the State lacks standing to interfere in the
administration of undersigned counsel (2) the State’s motion lacks legal authority
because it was untimely filed and relies solely upon a non-final order of this Court
(3) the State’s motion lacks moral authority because it is designed to deny counsel
to Mr. Thompson and is advanced in bad faith (4) FDSET"s representation of Mr.
Thompson in state court is proper because the state court proceeding is ancillary to
federal court proceedings, and (5) with this Court’s permission, which has already
been granted, Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee, Inc. is authorized
to represent Mr. Thompson in the stati court proceeding.

‘These proceedings are concluded.
*This proceeding is pending.
{2}

L IHESTATE LACKS STANDING TO PREVENT COUNSEL FROM
REPRESENTING MR. THOMPSON

The motion to reconsider should be denied because the State does not have
standing to interfere with Mr. Thompson's representation. FDSET was originally
appointed to represent Mr. Thompson by the District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(4)(B). As this Court is aware,
FDSET is a non-profit organization which operates under a grant and conditions
from the Judicial Conference via the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. FDSET is a community defender organization, as opposed to a federal
public defender office, and its employees are not federal government employees.’
FDSET operates under the umbrella of the Defender Services Division of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The appointment of FDSET is
guided by the Criminal Justice Act and the Administrative Office and is approved
by this Court and Federal District Courts for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The appointment and administration of counsel is a matter between the
Administrative Office, the federal courts and appointed counsel.

The State of Tennessee has neither authority nor standing to interfere in the

“Because FDSET employees are not federal employees, the Code of
Conduct for Federal Public Defender Employees regarding outside employment is
nanplicabl

{3}

240

" administration of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act.‘ It is inappropriate for

the Attorney General’s office to interfere in this matter. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 50 (1988)(the state government is constitutionally required to respect the
independence of criminal defense counsel); Sullivan v. United States, 21 F.3d 198,
202 (7* Cir. 1994) the actions of the federal defender in her capacity as counsel

for a client are beyond the control of the federal government). For these reasons,
the State’s most recent attempt to interfere with Mr. Thompson's representation
should not be sanctioned. The motion to reconsider should be denied.

The motion to reconsider should be denied because it is out of time and is
based solely upon a non-final order of this Court. 6 Cir. R. 45(b) allows

reconsideration of an order within ten (10) days of service of notice of the entry of
such order. The instant motion to reconsider was filed 390 days after the order

“The Attorney General’s Office for the State of Tennessee is not a ward of
federal taxpayer money. The Attorney General's Office may have an interest in
how state taxpayer money is allocated and apparently is advocating that counsel
for Mr. Thompson in the current state court proceeding should be paid from state
funds. However, in making this implicit suggestion, the Attorney General's Office
fails to alert the Court that it has vigorously opposed not only FDSET’s
representation of Mr. Thompson but also state counsel’s representation of Mr.
Thompson. The state's relentless attempts to deprive Mr. Thompson of counsel in
state proceedings are detailed infra at section II.

{4}

241

expanding FDSET’s representation to include state court proceedings was entered
and 54 days after the order in House, on which the State bases its motion, was
filed. Clearly the State’s untimely motion is not authorized under the rules of this
Court.

Furthermore, the only authority cited by the State is the July 16, 2003, order
of this Court in House v. Bell, No. 00-6136. The order in House, however, is not
mandatory authority. First, the order in House is not yet final. The State is well
aware that Mr. House has filed a motion to stay the effect of that order and has
requested the Court to rehear the representation issue.. This motion remains
pending |

Second, the House case is distinguishable on its face and on its facts from
Mr. Thompson's case. Importantly, unlike in House, this Court has already
expanded FDSET’s appointment to include representation of Mr. Thompson in
state court. This Court has determined that FDSET’s appearance in state court is
reasonably necessary to provide Mr. Thompson with legal representation and to
carry out the requirements of FDSET’s representation of Mr. Thompson. Because
the recent order in House does not dictate the results in Mr. Thompson's case, the

motion to reconsider should be denied.

{5}

—_

242

‘1 +THESTATE’S MOTION LACKS MORAL AUTHORITY TO

DEPRIVE MR. THOMPSON OF HIS ATTORNEYS

The motion to reconsider should be denied because it is designed to deny
counsel to Mr. Thompson and is advanced in bad faith. This motion cannot be
considered in a vacuum.’ From the inception of the State’s legal proceedings
against Mr. Thompson in state court the State has fought to deprive him of an
attorney. The instant motion is just another attempt to revive its failed efforts.

A. The State deprived Mr, Thompson of an attorney when it sought

a conservatorship for the purpose of forcing medication upon
him,

On April 3, 2001, the State filed a motion for appointment of a conservator
for the purpose of forcibly medicating Mr. Thompson. Despite being aware that
Mr. Thompson was represented by FDSET, the State failed to serve a copy of this
motion on FDSET counsel or provide notice of the conservatorship hearing. The
state court appointed a conservator to Mr. Thompson. Attachment A, order
appointing conservator. The conservatorship order deprives Mr. Thompson of the
right to make decisions regarding his medical treatment and medications and vests
the conservator with the power to consent to forcible medication of Mr.

"ior a recap of the state prowecilings where the State repeatedly attempted to
remeve Mr. Thompson's coumse! frew the proceedings see Attachment B, Reply to
Response toMotion to alter a amend 8/22/02.

{6}

Thompson.

B. The State sought to prevent Mr. Thompson’s FDSET attorney
from litigating the proceeding seeking to terminate the
conservatorship,

After undersigned counsel learned of the order appointing a conservator and
conducted an investigation, a motion to terminate the conservatorship was filed.
The State sought to strike the pleadings filed by Mr. Thompson’s counsel
(FDSET) and disqualify FDSET counsel from participating in the state court
proceedings. On July 2, 2002, the State filed a motion to preclude the appearance
of undersigned counsel asserting that such appearance constitutes the
“unauthorized practice of law”. Attachment C, Motion to Preclude and
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Preclude) |

C The State sought to prevent state defense attorneys from
representing Mr. Thompson at the proceeding seeking te
terminate the conservatorship,

In reaction to the entry of appearance by state counsel on behalf of Mr.
Thompson in the conservatorship proceeding, the State tried to prevent state
counsel from representing Mr. Thompson. Attachment D, transcript pp. 12-26
Hearing 1/25/02). When the Commission overseeing state counsel stepped in to
meet this challenge, the State also fought the appearance of counsel on behalf of

the commission. (Attachment D, transcript p. 25, Hearing 1/25/02). The State

{7}

244

gee

argued Mr. Thompson was not entitled to an attorney — period. Attachment D,
transcript Hearing 1/25/02, pp. 14-15, 26. The State later argued Mr. Thompson
did not need his own attorney because there was a conservator and attorney ad
litem involved in the case. Attachment E, transcript Hearing 8/28/02).

D. The State sought to prevent Mr. Thompson’s court-appointed

At the same time the State was asserting that Mr. Thompson was amply
represented by both the conservator and attorney ad litem, the State also sought to
deny compensation to the attorney ad litem. See Attachment F, transcript Hearing
6/28/02 pp. 4-13. When the state court granted the attorney ad litem's fee motion
the State filed an appeal. (Attachment G, Notice of Appeal)

E. The State’s attempts to deny Mr, Thompson an attorney were
rejected by the State probate court,

The state court disagreed with the State’s position and permitted state
conned torugmeenss iis, Themgenn! The state court specifically found that Mr.
Thompson was entitled to the protection and assistance of his criminal defense
lawyers in the conservatorship proceeding. Attachment D, transcript p. 87-91,

*The issue regarding FDSET’s representation of Mr. Thompson was
pretermitted by this Court order authorizing FDSET’s representation. See
Attachment H, state’s motion to withdraw motion to preclude 8/6/02.

{8}

Hearing 1/25/02.

F. The State’s attempts to deny Mr. Thompson an attorney were
also rejected by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals,

During this time, state counsel was unable to continue in the termination

proceeding and appellate litigation of a separate, but related, state court

proceeding. When undersigned counsel entered an appearance in that proceeding,
the State filed another motion to preclude FDSET’s appearance. Attachment I,
motion to preclude 7/9/02. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals denied the
State’s motion. Attachment J, Thompson v. Bell, No. M2001-02460-CCA-OT-CO
(Tenn.Crim.App. Order 7/16/02).
G. This most recent attempt to deny Mr. Thompson of the protection
and assistance of his Jawyers should also be thwarted,

On July 26, 2002, this Court expanded the scope of FDSET’s representation

of Mr. Thompson to include state court proceedings. The only state court
proceeding which remains pending is that secking to terminate the
conservatorship. Undersigned has continued to represent Mr. Thompson's
interests in that proceeding and has advocated the termination of the
conservatorship with its forced medication provision. Because the State has no
legitimate interest in preventing Mr. Thompson from receiving protection and

assistance from the lawyers who have represented him since 1998, and for all

{9}

246

" other reasons set forth herein, the motion to reconsider should be denied.

IV. FDSET’S REPRESENTATION OF MR. THOMSON IS PROPER
_ BECAUSE THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING DIRECTLY
RELATES TO FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
The conservatorship providing for forced medication of Mr. Thompson was
spawned from his federal habeas proceedings and is directly related to future
federal proceedings, including proceedings under Ford v. Wainwright.

A. Mr. Thompson’s habeas petition raised his mental state as
grounds for relief,

The habeas claims of continued relevance are Claim 22, the ineffective
assistance of counsel for failing to conduct a mental health investigation and
present mitigating evidence of Mr. Thompson’s compromised mental state at the
time of the crime and Claim 37, Mr. Thompson is incompetent to be executed and
Claim 41, the state misconduct claim. With respect to the Ford claim, the district
court dismissed it without prejudice for reasons of ripeness because an execution
date had not been scheduled. (Attachment K, Memorandum 2/17/00 p. 101-102).
Therefore, at a minimum, the Ford issue will be raised and litigated in future
proceedings.

B. Mr. Thompson’s competence was an issue during district court

proceedings,

On February 12, 1999, counsel filed a motion with the district court seeking

{10}

247

injunctive relief and an order finding Mr. Thompson incompetent to proceed and
tolling of the proceedings. The motion asserted that mental health treatment had
been withdrawn by personnel at the Department of Corrections and Mr.
Thompson's mental state had severely decompensated, rendering him
incompetent. (Attachment L, Ex Parte Motion 2/12/99). It was at a status hearing
that Assistant Attorney General Smith first introduced the idea of appointing a

conservator for forced medication purposes. (Attachment M, Transcript, p. 6,

Hearing 3/8/98). The district court ordered the parties to submit points of law and |

scheduled a hearing. (Attachment M, p. 15-16). Mr. Thompson’s memorandum
of law vigorously opposed the appointment of a fiduciary to Mr. Thompson.
(Attachment N, Memorandum 4/1/99). Subsequently, Mr. Thompson’s motion
was withdrawn because Mr. Thompson’s treating mental health staff adjusted their
treatment and again provided him with medication and Mr. Thompson’s condition
was showing improvement. (Attachment O, Withdrawal Motion 4/7/99).

C. Mr. Thompson’s competence was an issue during proceedings im

this Court,

On March 14, 2001, after <he briefs were filed in this case, the State of

Tennessee, through Atte~uey General and Reporter Paul Summers, TDOC Staff

Attorney Baker and Assistant Attorney General Jordan filed a petition for the

{11}

248

ee

appointment of a conservator in state court. In this petition the State conceded Mr.
Thompson’s long history of mental illness and asserted that he was “incapable of
making rational decisions.” (Attachment P, Petition to Appoint Conservator
3/14/01).

On June 26, 2001, the State of Tennessee, through TDOC Staff Attorney
Baker, denied a request for medical records made by Mr. Thompson’s counsel.
The basis for the denial of records is the release form which accompanied the
request. The State of Tennessee’s position was that the release form signed by Mr.
Thompson was invalid in light of the appointment of a conservator. (Attachment
Q, Letter 6/26/01). The State alleged that Mr. Thompson’s mental state was so
depreciated that it rendered a signed release form for medical records invalid.

On October 16, 2001, Assistant Attorney General Jordan represented to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee that the Tennessee
Department of Corrections believes Mr. Thompson is incompetent. (Attachment
R, Transcript, p. 9, Hearing 10/16/01).

D. Thestate court has recognized the inter-related nature of the
state and federal proceedings, |

The state court has recognized the gravity of the conservatorship action and
its relationship to Mr. Thompson’s death sentence calling the state proceeding

{12}

249

“very germane, at the very least collateral, to the sentence because the sentence is
death.” (Attachment D, Transcript 1/25/02 p. 87-90). The state court reasoned:
Yet for the State to carry out the death sentence, at the time of

his execution, he must be competent. ... I think it would be a terribly

narrow interpretation for me to say that determining today whether he

does or does not need a conservator, whether he does or does not

need this medication, and that that doesn’t have anything to do with

whether he is or is not competent for the carrying out of the sentence,

I think that would be one of the worst cases of my prejudging

something without ever hearing the evidence.

On another occasion, the state court noted the impropriety of the state
attorneys in the conservatorship action freely sharing Mr. Thompson's medical
information with the state attorneys that are seeking to enforce Mr. Thompson’s
death sentence. (Attachment E, Transcript p. 76-84, 8/28/02). To prevent further
harm, the Court imposed a “Chinese wall” to prevent such a free flow of
information. (Attachment S, Order p. 3-4, 10/9/02). Clearly, the state court
realized the nexus between the state and federal proceedings, as did this Court

when it entered its expanded appointment order.

E. Thestate court conservatorship proceeding is directly related to
{ederal court proceedings,

The above examples demonstrate the inter-related nature of the state court
proceedings and federal court proceedings in Mr. Thompson’s case. It is

imperative that Mr. Thompson have continuity of counsel in these proceedings to

{13}

effectively represent him and litigate his claims, including his future Ford claim.

To require Mr. Thompson to attempt to secure different counsel for the state
proceedings not only compromises his federal court litigation and places a distinct
disadvantage upon him not shared by the State, but, in all probability, it would
leave him without counsel. Because the state court proceeding is ancillary to Mr.
Thompson’s federal proceedings this Court’s previous appointment order should
remain in effect. The motion to reconsider should be denied.

VY. WITH THIS COURT’S PERMISSION, WHICH HAS ALREADY
BEEN GRANTED, FDSET IS AUTHORIZED TO. REPRESENT MR.
THOMPSON IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING.
FDSET is authorized to represent its clients in ancillary state court

proceedings. First, the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c), provides:
Se a
States magistrate or the court through appeal, including ancillary
matters appropriate to the proceedings.

(Emphasis added). The Criminal Justice Act Plan approved by this Court provides

representation “for financially eligible persons in ancillary matters appropriate to

the proceedings pursuant to subsection (c) of the CJA.” (Attachment T, CJA Plan

p.5).

Second, 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)\8) directs that:

{14}

251

...each attomey so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout
every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including
pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals,
applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and all available post-conviction process, together with
applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions
and procedures, and shall also represent the defendant in such

competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other
clemency as may be available to the defendant.
(Emphasis added). “The statute's plain meaning concerning the payment of fees
without reference to the forum is made clear by the congressional directive that
federally appointed counsel represent the defendant in competency and clemency
matters,” and other proceedings which ordinarily occur in state forums in
connection with a federal habeas case. Gordon v. Vasquez, 859 F.Supp. 413, 418
(E.D.Cal. 1994)(emphasis added) citing Hill v. Lockhart, 992 F.2d 801, 803-804
(8th Cir. 1993){the statute requires provision of attorneys for competency and
clemency proceedings even though they are ‘frequently [] not commenced until
State and federal post conviction relief have been denied’) aff'd in relevant part
Calderon v. U.S. District Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d 756 (9* Cir. 1997)(district
court may consider whether granting a fees request under section 848(q)(9) for
investigation of petitioner's state court case will assist the defendant in preparing
for his federal] habeas efforts as this request is .uthorized in “any post-conviction

proceeding” under the federal habeas corpus statutes and section 848(q\5)-(9)),

{15}

"see also Hickey v. Schomig, 420 F Supp.2d 793, 795 (N.D.IlL. 2002)(holding that

the plain language of § 848(q)(8) does extend to state proceedings). Moreover,
Congress’ use of the broad, flexible phrase “all available post-conviction process
and ... other appropriate motions and procedures, and... such competency
proceedings and proceedings for . . . clemency as may be available to the
defendant” further indicates that it meant state court proceedings, which vary
greatly from state to state, rather than the proceedings uniformly available to
federal capital defendants.

Third, the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services also
permits community defender appearances in state court to represent an individual
under a state-imposed death sentence in a state proceeding when “a presiding
judicial officer in a federal judicial proceeding involving the individual has
determined that such use of Defender Services appropriation funds is authorized
by law.” The Committee has defined “appearance” to mean “an involvement in a
state court proceeding ancillary to a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 capital action.”
(Attachment U, Administrative Office Memorandum 9/20/00 re: state court
appearances ancillary to federal habeas corpus representations). Such ancillary
proceedings “include: motions for stay of execution in state court, matters
pertaining to exhaustion of remedies in state court, pleadings related to successor

{16}

post-conviction litigation; and motions concerning various other activities.” (Jd.).
Under these provisions and with this Court’s permission, FDSET is clearly
authorized to appear in state court on Mr. Thompson's behalf.

Fourth, Federal Defenaers are authorized to appear in ancillary state court
proceedings even if federally funded private counsel are not. Aside from the

House decision which is not yet final, the only cases touching on the appearance

of Peter geld comed (n cute cout, 500, e.g., In re Lindsey, 875 F.2d 1502 |
(11* Cir. 1989), reveals why that is so. Lindsey, as well as the other cases
interpreting the scope of the “ancillary matters” provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3006A,
does not address the authority of federal defender attorneys to appear in state
court, rather whether private attorneys appointed under the CJA should be
compensated for activities undertaken in state court. As the nature of those
decisions makes clear, any limitations which might be implied from the language

of the CJA are not limitations on activity or authority, but limitations on federal

compensation for those activities.’

"Because these provisions at most limit the availability of compensation, the
State no more has standing to seek to “enforce” those provisions than it would to
challenge FDSET’s issuance of a paycheck to undersigned counsel. Similarly, this
court has no more authority to act upon that request than it would to prevent that
paycheck from being issued. Calderon v. U.S. District Court (Gordon), 107 F.3d
756, 761 (9* Cir. 1997).

{17}

It is, therefore, not surprising that federal defender organizations and federal
public defenders often appear in state court. An extremely abbreviated computer
research session reveals that these organizations have appeared as counsel of
record in no less than 34 reported® state court proceedings.” The nature of these
proceedings range from the litigation of claims of constitutional error (as is the

case here), Jn re Coleman, 95 Ohio St3d 284, 767 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio 2002), to
seeking to set aside orders in divorce cases. Matter of Marriage of Hampshire,
261 Kan. 854, 934 P.2d 58 (Kan. 1997). Their appearances have occurred in
jurisdictions as remote as Montana, State v. Leifert 309 Mont. 19, 43 P.2d 329
(Mont. 2002), and as near as our own state of Tennessee, Coleman v. State, 3

S.W.3d 19 (Tenn.Crim. App. 1998).
By representing its client, Mr. Thompson, in ancillary stat

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0045%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.