US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By
John Kruzel
, Reuters
Photo:
123RF
The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him.
A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment.
The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October.
Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case.
The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area.
The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins vs Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people.
US President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case.
At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability.
Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits."
Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72.
A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics.
The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case.
In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification.
Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony.
This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court.
Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue.
Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case.
"As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe.
It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases.
Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down.
That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top US judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
How jurors will decide the outcome of Erin Patterson's mushroom triple-murder trial
A handout sketch received from the Supreme Court of Victoria shows Erin Patterson, an Australian woman accused of murdering three people with a toxic mushroom-laced beef Wellington. Photo: AFP / PAUL TYQUIN By Judd Boaz , ABC More than nine weeks of legal proceedings have unfolded in Erin Patterson's murder trial , with the jury now set to deliberate on its verdict. Patterson is accused of murdering three relatives and attempting to murder a fourth at a lunch at her home in Leongatha, south-east of Melbourne, on July 29, 2023. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges, with her lawyers arguing the incident was a tragic accident. A panel of jurors, who have watched the proceedings take place in the town of Morwell from start to finish, will now decide whether or not the alleged crimes have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Here's what we know about how juries deliberate in Victoria. Those who travelled to Morwell to watch the trial in person may have initially seen 15 potential jurors empanelled. Members of the media gather outside the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court for the trial of triple-murder suspect Erin Patterson in Morwell. Photo: AFP / MARTIN KEEP This is because the Supreme Court empanelled an extra three people in case a potential juror fell sick or was discharged. We saw the importance of this measure first-hand on May 15, when Justice Christopher Beale opened court proceedings on what he described as "an unhappy note". Justice Beale told the panel that one of their fellow jurors had been removed based on "credible" information given to the court. "I received information that he had been discussing the case with family and friends, contrary to my instructions," the judge said. "I was of the view that it was at least a reasonable possibility that the information I'd received was credible." He ordered the jury not to contact the discharged juror. The two reserve jurors were balloted off after the judge gave his final directions to the jury, leaving 12 people to determine whether to acquit or convict Patterson of the four charges. The jury has now attended the court almost every weekday for nearly two months. More than 50 prosecution witnesses were called to give evidence, from fungi experts who logged the location of deadly death cap mushrooms in Gippsland, to the nurses and doctors who treated all five attendees of the lunch for poisoning symptoms. The prosecution alleges Erin Patterson foraged for death cap mushrooms intentionally. Photo: Supplied/iNaturalist Photos of a dehydrator that Patterson admitted to throwing away in panic and detailed phone and hospital records were among the dozens of pieces of evidence shown to the jury across several weeks. When it came time for Patterson's legal team to call a witness, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC put Patterson herself in the witness box. After several days of emotional testimony where Patterson shed tears watching footage of police interviewing her children, the prosecution began its cross-examination. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC engaged in several days of at-times tense questioning, regularly putting suggestions of guilt to Patterson, which she strongly denied. Following Patterson's testimony, both Mandy and Rogers made their closing addresses to the jury, recapping their cases to the jury over the course of several days. Finally, Justice Beale presented his final instructions to the jury over several days, telling the panel it must limit its deliberations to evidence presented before the court. "You are the only ones in this court who can make a decision about these facts," he said. "No one in the media, in public, in your workplace or in your homes have sat in that jury box throughout [this trial] … you and you alone are best placed to decide whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt." Erin Patterson speaking to media prior to being charged. Photo: ABC News When it comes to deciding whether Patterson is guilty of murder or not, the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the four legal elements of that charge have been met. Those are: Justice Beale told the jury on Monday that what was in dispute was whether the serving of the poisonous meal was deliberate and whether it was done with murderous intent. The judge explained that for the charge of attempted murder, the jury needed to be satisfied Patterson had intended to kill Ian Wilkinson, and that an intention to cause really serious injury was not applicable. As the defence reminded the jury in both its opening and closing arguments, the onus is on the prosecution to prove Patterson intentionally poisoned her relatives - in other words, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only guest to survive the lunch. His wife Heather Wilkinson, and Don and Gail Patterson all died from suspected mushroom poisoning. Photo: ABC / Supplied Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only guest to survive the lunch. His wife Heather Wilkinson, and Don and Gail Patterson all died. On the opening day of the trial, Mandy urged the jury to consider this as a scale. "Remember that scale: innocent down here," he said. "That's your starting point: open mind. "Guilt is all the way up there," he said as he gestured higher. Jurors have also been warned about the risk widespread media coverage poses to the high-profile case. Global media attention has shrouded the case for weeks. Justice Beale has explicitly warned jurors to reject any approaches from friends and family keen to discuss the case. He also warned them against undertaking their own investigations, such as visiting websites named in the trial or searching relevant locations online. Jurors who carry out their own research don't only risk an unfair trial; they also risk committing contempt, which can be a criminal offence. We will never know. Deliberations are kept strictly confidential. Jurors must not share what took place to anyone - even after a verdict has been reached. The secrecy of deliberations is a key part of the justice system, and what determines a jury's decision is never publicly revealed. "It's difficult to get access to jurors, but there's good reason for it," Professor Horan said. However, jurors are not completely left to their own devices. They may ask questions of the judge or request to see certain evidence again, but that doesn't always happen. On Monday the jury was told they would deliberate from Monday to Saturday. They will be sequestered, meaning they will not go home during the week and on Sundays. That's one question we can't really answer. Remember, the jury's verdicts must be unanimous, meaning all 12 panel members have to agree. Suffice it to say that deliberations will take as long as they need to. Given the requirement for a unanimous verdict, even one dissenting member can cause a "hung jury", meaning no unanimous verdict can be reached. Without trying to influence jurors' verdicts, the judge may offer assistance to prevent that outcome. But in the event that the jury remains unable to reach a consensus and a hung jury is declared, they will be discharged, and a new trial eventually held. On Monday, Justice Beale told the jury their verdict must be unanimous on each charge, but that that did not mean they must all reach their decisions the same way. "No matter how you reach your verdict, you must all agree," he said. - ABC
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Jury set to deliberate Sean 'Diddy' Combs's fate
The producer and entrepreneuer, once one of the most powerful people in the music industry, denies the charges. Photo: Supplied / Elizabeth Williams By Maggy Donaldson , AFP Jurors on Monday will begin deliberating whether Sean "Diddy" Combs parlayed his celebrity, wealth and business empire into a decades-long criminal ring that saw him force women into drug-fueled sexual performances with escorts . The dozen New Yorkers tasked with deciding the music mogul's future will began poring over thousands of phone, financial and other records along with the stories of 34 people who testified against him over seven painstaking, and at times excruciating, weeks. Combs, 55, faces upwards of life in prison if convicted on five federal charges that include racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation for purposes of prostitution. The producer and entrepreneuer, once one of the most powerful people in the music industry, denies the charges . On Friday his lawyer vied to skewer the credibility of his accusers - namely two women he dated for years - saying they were out for money, while rejecting any notion he led a criminal ring. But in their final argument, prosecutors tore into the defense, saying Combs's team had "contorted the facts endlessly." Prosecutor Maurene Comey told jurors that by the time Combs had committed his clearest-cut offenses, "he was so far past the line he couldn't even see it." "In his mind he was untouchable," she told the court. "The defendant never thought that the women he abused would have the courage to speak out loud what he had done to them." "That ends in this courtroom," she said. "The defendant is not a god." Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo scoffed at the picture painted by prosecutors of a violent, domineering man who fostered "a climate of fear." Combs is a "self-made, successful Black entrepreneur" who had romantic relationships that were "complicated" but consensual, Agnifilo said. Ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, who described abuse, threats and coercive sex, has been key to the prosecution's case. Photo: CNN The defense has conceded that Combs at times beat his partners - but insist the domestic violence does not amount to the sex trafficking or racketeering he's charged with. Key to the prosecution's case were witnesses Casandra Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane, both of whom described abuse , threats and coercive sex in wrenching detail. In their closing arguments the defense dissected their accounts and at times even mocked them, insisting the women were adults making choices that were best for them. Speaking for the government on Friday, prosecutor Comey snapped back at that notion, saying the women were "manipulated" into "brazen" acts of sex trafficking. Ventura and Jane both said they experienced emotional manipulation and threats which made them feel obliged to meet Combs's sexual demands. Throughout the trial, jurors were shown voluminous phone records, including messages from both women that Agnifilo argued implied consent. But prosecutors said those messages do not paint the whole picture, and referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by abusers. Central to their case is the claim that Combs led a criminal enterprise of senior employees who "existed to serve his needs" and enforced his power with offenses including forced labor, kidnapping, bribery, witness tampering and arson. But Agnifilo underscored that none of those individuals testified against Combs, nor were they named as co-conspirators. Many witnesses were given immunity orders so they could speak without fear of incriminating themselves. To convict Combs on racketeering, jurors must find that prosecutors showed beyond reasonable doubt that he agreed with people within his organisation to commit at least two of the eight crimes forming the racketeering charge. On Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian will explain to them how apply the law to the evidence. Then, the eight men and four women will begin deliberating. They must reach a unanimous decision, reaching either a guilty or not guilty verdict on each count. - AFP
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Majority Of Youth MPs Back Call To Lower The Voting Age
For the second consecutive Youth Parliament, a majority of Youth MPs from across the political spectrum have signed an open letter calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16. A cross-party group of Youth MPs endorsed the letter that calls on Parliament to listen to youth voices and take action on an issue that has seen growing momentum both legally, politically and internationally, with the UK parliament poised to introduce legislation later this year. 'Youth Parliament is supposed to be a celebration of youth voice and civic engagement. It is a recognition from Parliament that we are capable of debating complex issues,' says Thomas Brocherie, 17, a Make It 16 Co-Director and 2025 Youth MP for Lan Pham. 'But it's deeply ironic that many of us will not have the right to vote in this year's local election, or even next year's general election, despite being invited to stand up for our communities on a national stage.' Sam Allan, Make It 16 spokesperson and 2025 Youth MP for Hamish Campbell, adds: ' We have been invited to share powerful lived experiences about what it means to be a young New Zealander. We have been loud and clear on climate change, youth homelessness, mental health and our education system. Unfortunately, politicians have still not caught up.' Youth Parliament was originally established in 1994 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of lowering the voting age to 18. In the spirit of that kaupapa, the Make It 16 campaign was founded during Youth Parliament in 2019 and has consistently advocated for voting rights to be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds. This is now the third consecutive Youth Parliament where young people have challenged the government of the day to listen and act on the aspirations of rangatahi. Since then, Make It 16 has won a Supreme Court case declaring the current voting age of 18 as unjustified age discrimination and has gathered widespread public, legal, and political support. But despite a Bill being introduced in Parliament in 2022, it was later axed by the National-ACT-NZ First government in early 2024 before any of the submissions made on the Bill could even be read. 'We have been invited to take part in Youth Parliament, to share our bold vision for tackling Aotearoa's biggest challenges, but at the end of the day, our voices are still being sidelined when it comes to the decisions that will disproportionately affect us in the future. It's time we were a real part of the decision-making table', says Lincoln Jones, Make It 16 Spokesperson and 2025 Youth MP for Willie Jackson. Currently 63 (and counting) Youth MPs have signed the 2025 open letter, joining the legacy of their predecessors from 2022 and 2019. Notes Open Letter:
