of capital punishment is satisfied only if the prisoner understands that his execution will end his physical life. Accord Martin v. Dugger, 686 F.Supp. 1523, 1569 (S.D.Fla.1988) (“An essential part of the punishment society imposes on a defendant is to make the defendant realize and live with the concept that he will die for what he did.... Accordingly, if retribution is to be served by the death of a condemned prisoner, the prisoner must at least have this realization.”). Similar language, indicating an appreciation that a prisoner’s awareness of his execution must include the understanding that execution means the end of his physical life, is found in numerous federal and state court decisions before and after Ford. See, e.g., Scott v. Mitchell, 250 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Barnard v. Collins, 13 F.3d 871, 876-77 (5th
holding that competency is appropriately defined as the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and why it was imposed upon the convict emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that to determine whether a north carolina conviction for a crime is punishable by a prison term exceeding one year a court is to consider the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible criminal history internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted holding that the decisions of administrative agencies of the state described by article vi section 29 of the constitution of new mexico include regulations adopted by a board emphasis added internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that an acquittal may be based on a ruling by the court however mistaken that the evidence is insufficient to convict emphasis added