Thomas Beavers was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the May 1, 1990 killing of his neighbor Marguerite Lowery. Beavers was only 19 at the time of the crime and had no significant adult criminal record. 

Lowery was sleeping when Beavers broke in. Startled, she began to scream. In an effort to keep her quiet Beavers put a pillow over her face. He was also charged with raping the woman. Beavers said that when he removed the pillow, the woman took several gasps for air and then stopped moving all together.

He contended that he never intended to kill Mrs. Lowery. He said he was only trying to quiet her down. Beavers' attorneys pointed  to the testimony of the medical examiner himself. This witness testified that there were no signs of physical violence. He believed the witness died of cardiac arrhythmia, brought on by a preexisting heart condition. 

Beavers had no prior criminal record as an adult, and held that he never meant to kill his victim. Thus, he felt there was no evidence that he presented a future danger to society. It is on these grounds that Thomas contended the death penalty is cruel and excessive punishment in his case. The state of Virginia disagreed.

-----------

During his trial, Thomas Beavers received a court appointed psychiatrist who provided no sufficient evidence that Beavers had any mental health problems at the time of the crime. Beavers was subsequently found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death. Upon further examination Beavers found that if his attorney had been competent during the trial he would have obtained mental health evidence which would possibly have altered the verdict.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit denied his appeal that his attorney acted incompetently. They conceded the "evidence of a defendant's mental impairment may diminish his blameworthiness for his crime" yet they also stated that his mental health may also "indicate that there is a possibility that he will be dangerous in the future." As a result of this fear, the Court upheld his death sentence.

Beavers also argues that his original trial should have resulted in a mistrial after some disputed and damaging evidence was given by a police officer who questioned Beavers after he was arrested. While on the stand, the police officer was handed some documents by the prosecutors to refresh his memory about a statement which Beavers allegedly made during questioning.

The police officer then testified that Beavers had admitted his guilt to him by stating, "he had no other choice but to do what he had done because [the victim] could identify him." Although the defense raised an objection which was sustained and resulted in the judge instructing the jury to strike the testimony from their minds, the damage had already been done. Although the defense requested a mistrial, the judge denied it and Beavers was convicted.

In their denial of his appeal the Court wrote, "Even if we were to conclude that Beavers is correct that the failure to grant a mistrial under these circumstances was an error of constitutional dimension, relief would not be appropriate." Therefore, despite an admittedly prejudiced jury the Court still recommended death. 

In addition to the aforementioned reasons, Beavers also appealed because the state trial court refused to allow one of his attorneys to withdraw from the case, it failed to remove a juror who stated she would vote for the death penalty if he was convicted, and it did not "guide adequately the discretion of jurors in considering mitigating evidence." 

On a personal note, Thomas grew up with a schizophrenic mother who, as a result of her illness, did not adequately provide for him and often abused him.