Death row prisoner gauges out both his own eyes to delay execution
A man on death row for killing his wife and children before removing both of their hearts, gouged both of his eyes out and ate them in a desperate attempt to avoid execution.
Andre Thomas was sentenced to death in 2005, but his execution date was postponed after he pulled out his own eyeballs. Thomas was found in his cell covered in blood before his day in court in 2004, reports The San Diego Union-Tribune.
The man gouged out his other eye and ingested his second eye in another incident, which left him fully blind. His attorneys said he thought the act of mutilation would stop the government hearing his thoughts.
To this day the 39-year-old, is imprisoned in Texas for a triple murder he committed and has confessed to. He admitted to murdering his estranged wife, Laura Christine Boren, his four-year-old son and Boren's 13-month-old daughter.
He told police God had told him to commit the murders and he'd believed the three of them were demons. Thomas also removed the hearts of both children, Associated Press reported.
He was found guilty in 2005 and was automatically given the death penalty. He was to be executed on April 5, 2023.
An agency spokesperson, Jason Clark, said: "Thomas said he pulled out his eye and subsequently ingested it."
In March 2023, Judge Jim Fallon issued an order withdrawing Thomas' warrant of execution, which came after his lawyers asked for additional time to review his mental state to see if he passed the competency threshold for the death penalty.
According to the Supreme Court, while the death penalty is not illegal for those with severe mental illnesses, it rules a person must be competent.
Marie Levin, Thomas' attorney, wrote in a statement: "We are confident that when we present the evidence of Mr. Thomas's incompetence, the court will agree that executing him would violate the Constitution.
"Guiding this blind psychotic man to the gurney for execution offends our sense of humanity and serves no legitimate purpose."
Levin said Thomas was 'one of the most mentally ill prisoners in Texas history … not competent to be executed, lacking a rational understanding of the state's reason for his execution.'
Following the ingestion of his first eyeball, Thomas was treated at a medical centre before being transferred to a prison psychiatric ward.
His trial attorney, Bobbie Peterson-Cate, said here he would 'finally be able to receive the mental health care that we had wanted and begged for from day 1.'
In March 2023, a call for clemency was issued by more than 100 faith leaders amongst others to stop his execution, however, J. Kerye Ashmore, with the Grayson County District Attorney's Office who prosecuted the case, said they know 'nothing about the case' and had not read any reports or evaluations regarding his mental state.
Thomas remains on death row.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Australian lawyer apologizes for AI-generated errors in murder case
A senior lawyer in Australia has apologized to a judge for filing submissions in a murder case that included fake quotes and non-existent case judgments generated by artificial intelligence. The blunder in the Supreme Court of Victoria state is another in a litany of mishaps AI has caused in justice systems around the world. Defense lawyer Rishi Nathwani, who holds the prestigious legal title of King's Counsel, took 'full responsibility' for filing incorrect information in submissions in the case of a teenager charged with murder, according to court documents seen by The Associated Press on Friday. 'We are deeply sorry and embarrassed for what occurred,' Nathwani told Justice James Elliott on Wednesday, on behalf of the defense team. The AI-generated errors caused a 24-hour delay in resolving a case that Elliott had hoped to conclude on Wednesday. Elliott ruled on Thursday that Nathwani's client, who cannot be identified because he is a minor, was not guilty of murder because of mental impairment. 'At the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory,' Elliott told lawyers on Thursday. 'The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice,' Elliott added. The fake submissions included fabricated quotes from a speech to the state legislature and non-existent case citations purportedly from the Supreme Court. The errors were discovered by Elliott's associates, who couldn't find the cases and requested that defense lawyers provide copies. The lawyers admitted the citations 'do not exist' and that the submission contained 'fictitious quotes,' court documents say. The lawyers explained they checked that the initial citations were accurate and wrongly assumed the others would also be correct. The submissions were also sent to prosecutor Daniel Porceddu, who didn't check their accuracy. The judge noted that the Supreme Court released guidelines last year for how lawyers use AI. 'It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,' Elliott said. The court documents do not identify the generative artificial intelligence system used by the lawyers. In a comparable case in the United States in 2023, a federal judge imposed $5,000 fines on two lawyers and a law firm after ChatGPT was blamed for their submission of fictitious legal research in an aviation injury claim. Judge P. Kevin Castel said they acted in bad faith. But he credited their apologies and remedial steps taken in explaining why harsher sanctions were not necessary to ensure they or others won't again let artificial intelligence tools prompt them to produce fake legal history in their arguments. Later that year, more fictitious court rulings invented by AI were cited in legal papers filed by lawyers for Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump. Cohen took the blame, saying he didn't realize that the Google tool he was using for legal research was also capable of so-called AI hallucinations.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court declines to block age verification law for social media
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 17 lifted a hold put on the law by a federal district judge who had ruled that it likely violates the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Sul Ozerden had said the law is too broad, and parents have others way of monitoring their children's use of social media. The Supreme Court didn't explain its decision in the case. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that while Mississippi's law is likely unconsitutional, NetChoice didn't show that letting it be enforced during the legal challenge is sufficiently harmful. NetChoice attorney Paul Taske called the court's decision "an unfortunate procedural delay." "Although we're disappointed with the Court's decision, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment - not just in this case but across all NetChoice's ID-for-Speech lawsuits," Taske said in a statement. A spokesperson for Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said the state is "grateful for the Court's decision to leave Mississippi's law in effect while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues." Mississippi's attorneys say the law is a targeted effort to regulate social media platforms that let predators interact with children. "The Act requires what any responsible covered platform would already do: make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to protect minors," they told the Supreme Court. They said the law was prompted by a 16-year-old boy taking his own life after someone he met on Instagram threatened to expose their sexual encounter unless he paid $1,000. And they said Ozerden's order blocking enforcement conflicts with the Supreme Court's June decision upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites. More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites NetChoice said the law forces every Mississippian - adults and minors alike - to surrender personal information to access online speech that's protected by the First Amendment. "Social media is the modern printing press - it allows all Americans to share their thoughts and perspectives," said Paul Taske, co-director of the Net Choice Litigation Center. "Just as the government can't force you to provide identification to read a newspaper, the same holds true when that news is available online."
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Queensland council blocked from evicting homeless sleeping in tents at city park
Queensland's supreme court has temporarily ordered a council not to evict homeless residents from sleeping in a park, warning those sleeping rough faced 'serious risk of harm' if denied shelter. Justice Paul Smith issued the injunction on Friday as part of an ongoing human rights challenge by 11 residents of Goodfellows Road, a park in Kallangur. It prevents the City of Moreton Bay from evicting anyone from the park while an application challenging the council's homelessness policies continues. 'If shelter was to be taken away, the applicants would be placed at serious risk of harm from being exposed to the elements,' Smith said. sign up: au breaking news email The council changed its local laws to ban homelessness in February. In April, it started evicting residents of several homeless shelters with the aid of police, council rangers, a bulldozer and an excavator. Law firms Hall & Wilcox and Basic Rights Queensland challenged the practice under Queensland's Human Rights Act. Many of the residents of Goodfellows Road previously resided in Eddie Hyland Park in Lawnton, before they were moved on from there in April. They were then issued notices ordering them to move on from the new park in June. Smith said he was persuaded that there was a prima facie case suggesting the council had failed to make proper consideration of potential breaches of the Human Rights Act before enacting its new local laws. Under Queensland law, human rights may be limited by government action but only after consideration and where doing so is proportionate. 'I find there is a reasonable argument on the part of the applicants that the relevant decisions infringe these particular rights and insufficient considerations given to those rights before the decisions were made,' he said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Smith found the council would be harmed less by his granting the injunction than those sleeping rough would be if he did not grant it. 'I can understand that some of the community might complain about homeless people living in their midst in tents,' he said. 'On the other hand, the Human Rights Act provides protections to all citizens, including the homeless, and I consider it to be wrong not to protect vulnerable applicants from the potential loss of their homes in the midst of winter. 'There is a risk in my mind that the applicants may lose their homes'. The council's lawyer, Scott McCleod, argued that the City of Moreton Bay had promised in correspondence to the court not to enforce the notices. However, Smith said it had not made a formal undertaking to allow the applicants to stay. Barrister Matthew Hickey, acting for the applicants, argued they were vulnerable people who had nowhere else to go if evicted again. Under the order, the council is still permitted to enforce local laws intended to ensure public health and safety that existed before it banned homelessness. The injunction will apply until the case is heard in full in November. The court heard the government may request a later date.
