South Carolina Inmate Targets Sovereign Citizen Defense Amid Impending Execution

South Carolina Inmate Targets Sovereign Citizen Defense Amid Impending Execution

Attorneys representing a South Carolina death row inmate are mounting a last-minute appeal arguing that their client lacks the mental competence required for execution. The defense hinges partly on the inmate’s belief that he is a sovereign citizen.

Steven Bixby, alongside his father, Arthur Bixby, became embroiled in a deadly standoff with law enforcement on December 8, 2003, in Abbeville, South Carolina. This confrontation, which lasted over 12 hours, resulted in the tragic deaths of two police officers.

The Triggering Incident

The conflict began when the South Carolina Department of Transportation sought to expand a highway by utilizing an easement on Bixby property. The Bixbys maintained that the easement was either fabricated or irrelevant to their situation.

Members of the Bixby family, including Steven’s mother, Rita Bixby, had long been associated with the sovereign citizen movement, a loosely organized group that believes they can evade government authority.

Understanding Sovereign Citizens

The FBI categorizes sovereign citizens as extremists who operate under the belief that they are above U.S. law and can disregard the directives of law enforcement, courts, and various governmental agencies. This mindset often leads to contentious legal battles, with individuals filing numerous lawsuits against government entities—an approach exemplified by Rita Bixby’s history of litigation.

The Charges and Sentencing

After the standoff, Steven Bixby faced multiple charges, including two counts of murder and one count of criminal conspiracy. In February 2007, a jury sentenced him to death, while both Arthur and Rita Bixby received life sentences for their roles in the attack.

Execution Delays and Legal Maneuvering

Following the exhaustion of his appeals by 2010, Bixby’s execution loomed closer, but the state experienced a shortage of lethal injection drugs, leading to a pause in executions. In 2021, legislation allowed executions to resume through alternative methods such as firing squads or electrocution. The state executed its first death row inmate in 13 years, signaling a possible imminent execution for Bixby.

Originally scheduled for execution last May, a judge postponed his date to evaluate his mental competency for execution.

The Legal Arguments

Bixby’s attorneys argue that he fails to meet the state’s two-pronged competency test for execution. The first prong aligns with U.S. Supreme Court standards, which require that the individual understands the nature of their punishment. The South Carolina Supreme Court adds a second criterion determined in the 1993 case Singleton v. State, assessing whether the inmate can rationally communicate with legal counsel.

According to Bixby’s legal team, his unwavering belief in the sovereign citizen ideology, coupled with his loyalty to his parents, creates substantial barriers to his understanding of the death penalty and his ability to communicate effectively with his lawyers.

Expert Perspectives

Michael Meltsner, a law professor emeritus at Northeastern University, recently commented on the evolving situation surrounding Bixby’s case. He noted that claims related to sovereign citizenship, while indicative of a disturbing belief system, do not inherently submit as a valid defense concerning criminal charges or the death penalty under existing legal standards.

Meltsner also pointed out that while the U.S. Supreme Court provides baseline competency criteria, South Carolina’s legal framework may offer additional considerations. He stated that if the South Carolina courts conclude that Bixby cannot effectively communicate with legal counsel, this may serve as a basis to prevent his execution.

Determining Mental Competency

Regarding the implications of Bixby’s beliefs about sovereignty on his mental health, Meltsner expressed uncertainty. He emphasized that the characterization of such beliefs varies widely, from potentially incapacitating to disingenuous manipulation.

Bixby continues to assert that he acted in self-defense during the tragic events. His legal journey reflects the broader implications of legal competency and mental health in capital punishment cases, raising questions that could resonate in future legal discussions.

A Legacy of Legal Struggles

The Bixby family’s history with the sovereign citizen movement traces back to their previous residence in New Hampshire, where Rita increasingly engaged in litigation against state authorities. Arthur faced arrest for defying a court order related to an outstanding debt.

Steven’s move to South Carolina came after a warrant was issued for his arrest due to drunk driving and failure to report for parole. His parents relocated soon after, amid fears of losing their home to foreclosure for unpaid taxes.

The Land Dispute

The catalyst for the violent confrontation with law enforcement arose in the early 2000s when the Bixbys were informed they had an easement, granted to the state by a prior property owner, allowing road expansion adjacent to their land.

On the morning of December 8, 2003, tensions boiled over, and Steven Bixby reportedly threatened a land surveyor, prompting law enforcement intervention.

As the crisis unfolded, Abbeville County sheriff’s Sgt. Danny Wilson arrived on the scene only to be shot and severely injured. He was subsequently taken inside the Bixby home, where he died. Constable Donnie Ouzts, who arrived later to assist, was also killed during the standoff.

A Critical Juncture in the Legal System

This harrowing incident culminated in a lengthy shootout involving law enforcement units from across the region, resulting in the arrests of Steven and Arthur Bixby. As the legal proceedings surrounding Bixby’s possible execution progress, the intersection of belief, mental competency, and justice looms large in a case that continues to captivate public attention.