Fairness of 100-year prison sentence for man with IQ of 47 questioned

From The Dallas Morning News:

AUSTIN – When an 18-year-old with profound mental disabilities performed sexual acts on a 6-year-old neighbor, the small town of Paris, Texas, was unforgiving.

But Aaron Hart's (pictured) punishment – 100 years in prison for a single incident – has stunned veteran disability rights advocates, who believed counseling, probation or even placement in a group home would have sufficed for a first-time offender with the mental maturity of a second-grader.

"Aaron is 18, never committed a felony, had no violent record. He couldn't understand the seriousness of what he did," said his father, Robert Hart. "I never dreamed they would think about sending him to prison. When they said 100 years – it was terror, pure terror to me."

The sentence raises serious questions about how people with profound disabilities are prosecuted in Texas, at a time when both state lawmakers and the U.S. Supreme Court are considering the appropriate punishment for people who are young, mentally disabled, or both. Repeat child molesters and rapists routinely receive lesser sentences than Hart's.

Also at issue is Hart's trial. His defense attorney hardly questioned his client's competency to stand trial, his appellate lawyer said. And though both the judge and jurors say they would have preferred not to send Hart to prison, state care facilities and group homes for disabled offenders were never presented as options.

"It's not just abnormal. It's absurd. I wouldn't think a sentence would go above a few years in a situation like this," said Daniel Benson, a Texas Tech law professor and author of textbooks on criminal offenders with mental illness. "That's not helpful to society or the offender."

Lamar County and District Attorney Gary Young said that while he sympathizes with Hart's "mental health challenges," he stands by his decision to prosecute Hart on five counts related to the incident. It's common for prosecutors to pursue several charges in a case involving one incident, not knowing which charge the jury will support.

"I hope people will remember he committed a violent sexual crime against a little boy," Young said.

David Pearson, Hart's appellate attorney, said he's never seen a worse miscarriage of justice.

Pearson blames Hart's trial attorney, who had the burden of explaining Hart's disability to the judge and jury. That attorney, appointed by the court because Hart's family couldn't afford counsel, did not ask for special accommodations, such as a liaison who could help the defendant understand what was happening in court. Nor did he try to call witnesses who could testify to Hart's mental condition, Pearson said.

And he didn't get a second opinion after a court-appointed doctor found Hart competent to stand trial. That meant Hart no longer qualified for prison diversion options, like group homes and institutional settings for disabled offenders.

The original trial attorney, Ben Massar, did not return repeated phone calls to his office.

Faced with a five-count guilty plea signed in wobbly block letters, a jury convicted Hart in February and sentenced him to three 30-year prison terms and two five-year terms – one for each class of offense. Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford, who made the decision to stack the sentences into one 100-year prison term, said neither he nor the jury loved the idea of prison for Hart, but felt there was no other option.

"In the state of Texas, there isn't a whole lot you can do with somebody like him," said Clifford, who rejected Hart's first request for a new trial.

Jurors tell a different story. They say that during deliberations, they repeatedly sent notes to the judge asking if there were alternatives to prison, which they said the judge didn't answer clearly. They said they were sure Hart would serve a concurrent sentence and were flabbergasted when Clifford stacked the sentences.

Lawmakers are working out the final kinks on a bill that would require law enforcement officials who take someone with obvious mental disabilities into custody to let a court magistrate know within 72 hours. The court magistrate would have to order a local mental health or mental retardation expert to assess the individual immediately and would allow that assessment to be considered during the trial's punishment phase.

Hart, who has an IQ of 47, was found to be mentally retarded as a child and placed in a special school curriculum. He never learned to read or write. His speech is unsteady. His disabilities made him a target of bullies who stole his bikes and his shoes, his father said.

But his parents never considered putting him in an institution or a group home. They loved having him at home, and despite the teasing, they said, he was gentle, courteous and well-behaved.

After graduation, Hart, who doesn't have the capacity to work, was a constant presence in the neighborhood. He made friends with some younger boys, playing video games and doing household chores to make money. His parents say until the September incident, he never once acted out sexually or gave any inkling that he was a threat to children.

On the eve of his arrest, he was excited about a fair coming to town and asked a neighbor if he could mow her lawn to make a few dollars. She found him in the back shed fondling her 6-year-old stepson. When the police arrived, they read Hart his rights, and he confessed to what he'd done. As they transported him to jail, he asked repeatedly whether he'd get paid for mowing the lawn.

Young, the prosecutor, said that once a psychologist found Hart competent to stand trial, it was obvious the 18-year-old "knew right from wrong." He said choosing diversion over prison was not an option. Under the law, those convicted of serious felonies such as sexual assault of a child are not eligible for diversion programs.

"Mr. Hart is not severely mentally retarded to the point he doesn't understand what's taking place around him," said Allan Hubbard, a victim's advocate for the district attorney.

Hart's family flatly disagrees.

"I've been around this kid since the day he was born, and I know better than anyone what he's capable of understanding," his father said.

Pearson, the appellate attorney, and disability rights groups say the trial was riddled with errors from start to finish.

Hart was read his Miranda rights, but not a special version designed for people with disabilities, and he confessed to five felony counts without an attorney present. The special Miranda rights aren't constitutionally required but are considered a best practice, advocates say.

Pearson said the court-appointed doctor who evaluated Hart did the bare minimum to determine competency; he didn't talk to any of Hart's teachers and ran tests geared toward mental illness, not mental retardation.

Meanwhile, Hart's defense attorney never presented his own evidence or expert witnesses to testify about Hart's mental capacity, assuming, Pearson said, that Hart would only get probation. Pearson said Massar was ruled an ineffective counsel in a 2007 case the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana overturned. That court is expected to hear Hart's appeal later this year.

Officials with the district attorney's office say that police carefully read Hart his Miranda rights and that he told officers he understood them. They say the doctor who evaluated Hart has years of experience. And they note that the defense asked for no special accommodations during the trial.

Young says he took Hart's mental condition into account after sentencing, flagging him for the "Mentally Retarded Offender Program," a special Texas prison unit that houses 930 inmates with mental disabilities. Hart arrived there this month.

Hart's father, Robert, said that while his son may look like a man, mentally, he's as young as his victim. He said the one silver lining in this case is that his son doesn't understand how dire his situation is.

"He keeps saying he'll be out soon, he'll be home with us, that maybe he'll get probation," he said. "It's the hardest thing I've ever had to hear."