Whether a report from a qualified neuropsychiatrist that a condemned prisoner is incompetent for execution that is not contradicted by any qualified expert by the state, provides sufficient evidence to establish a substantial threshold showing of insanity to require a 'fair hearing in accord with fundamental fairness' as mandated by this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Johnny Johnson, a Missouri death row inmate, filed an original petition for a writ for habeas corpus before the Missouri Supreme Court alleging that his execution, scheduled for August 1, 2023, would violate the Eighth Amendment because he is mentally incompetent to be executed under this Court’s decisions in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1985), and Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Petitioner’s constitutional claim was based upon a face-to-face mental evaluation and a lengthy report issued by a qualified neuropsychiatrist who found that, due to petitioner’s severe mental illness and resulting irrational delusions, he lacked a rational understanding of the reasons for his execution. The only rebuttal evidence the state submitted to the Missouri Supreme Court was an affidavit from a prison mental health counselor and an incomplete set of petitioner’s prison mental health records. Approximately three weeks after the petition was filed, the Missouri Supreme Court denied all relief based upon a paper record without affording petitioner an evidentiary hearing or any other adversarial process to litigate his claim. After the petition was denied, new records were disclosed to petitioner’s counsel which called into serious question the accuracy and veracity of the state’s rebuttal evidence. Based upon this new evidence, petitioner filed a motion to recall the mandate in the Missouri Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the court’s prior denial of his habeas petition, which was summarily denied. Based on the foregoing facts, this petition presents the following questions: 1. Whether a report from a qualified neuropsychiatrist that a condemned prisoner is incompetent for execution that is not contradicted by any qualified expert by the state, provides sufficient evidence to establish a substantial threshold showing of insanity to require a “fair hearing in accord with fundamental fairness” as mandated by this Court’s decisions in Ford and Panetti. 2. Whether the Missouri Supreme Court’s practice issuing findings of fact and credibility determinations based entirely on a paper record and issuing final adjudications on the merits of condemned prisoners’ Ford/Panetti claims without permitting discovery or an evidentiary hearing in an expedited manner violates procedural due process. 3. Whether the Missouri Supreme Court’s disparate treatment of habeas corpus petitions from condemned men raising Ford/Panetti claims with the petitions of other prisoner’s state habeas petitions in situations where the record is not adequately developed by affording all other habeas petitioners an evidentiary hearing before a Special Master, violates due process and equal protection.