« Ind. Decisions - So far "McKinney lawsuit costs BSU $650,000" | Main | Ind. Courts - Supreme Court signs $11 million contract with Tyler Technologies [Updated] »

Monday, June 11, 2007

Courts - "The Supreme Court ruled against executing the mentally retarded, but defining that group has proved difficult"

Some quotes from a story by David G. Savage in today's LA Times:

Though the high court found that there was a "national consensus" against executing the mentally retarded [5 years ago in Atkins vs. Virginia], it left it to the states to decide which murderers would qualify for that exemption.

Determined prosecutors have had little trouble convincing juries that a convicted killer with a low IQ is not necessarily retarded. The definition of retardation is imprecise; test results can vary, giving prosecutors an opportunity to produce additional scores and other evidence to make the case that an inmate is actually smart enough to die.

The result is that the Supreme Court's ruling has had less effect than many had foreseen.

"There has been more resistance than I expected," said University of New Mexico law professor James Ellis, an expert on mental retardation who represented Atkins before the Supreme Court.

A few states moved off of death row several inmates who had IQ scores in the 60s or low 70s, he said. But states where capital punishment has strong support, including Virginia and Texas, have let juries decide. And "it's an uphill fight with the jury" to establish mental retardation, Ellis said. * * *

The greatest effect of the court's ruling may have been in cases that followed. Some prosecutors probably chose not to seek the death penalty when a murder suspect had low IQ scores, legal experts said. * * *

Historically, the law has exempted from criminal punishment people who are mentally ill. If they were disturbed or delusional when they committed the crime, they presumably could not understand the consequences of their acts and therefore would not be considered legally responsible.

People with mild mental retardation are judged to be competent to stand trial. They presumably understand when they have done wrong. They "should be tried and punished when they commit crimes," Justice John Paul Stevens said in the Atkins decision. "Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability" that puts them among the small group of the worst offenders who deserve to die.

The Atkins case shows the difficulty of deciding whether a criminal is mentally retarded: a condition that Stevens, quoting the American Assn. on Mental Retardation, defined in part as "significantly subaverage intellectual functioning" — measured, perhaps, by an IQ of 70 or below — and difficulty in adapting to the ordinary tasks of life.

For Indiana's position (from an incomplete review of recent Indiana Supreme Court rulings on mental retardation), see the 9/13/05 opinion in Tommy R. Pruitt v. State (ILB entry here). See also this 4/26/07 entry on David Leon Woods.

Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court April 12th in the case of Paul Michael McManus, as reported by the Evansville C & P and quoted in this 4/13/07 ILB entry. From the story:

Rejecting his insanity defense, a jury in 2002 convicted McManus of three counts of murder; and McManus was sentenced to death.

Among other things, McManus' IQ tested in the 70s, he was in special-education classes throughout school, could read only three-letter words and couldn't complete simple tasks such as using a tape measure.

The prosecution, through the state attorney general's office, appealed, and the state Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday.

The justices had pointed questions for McManus' attorney, Joanna Green, about whether McManus could raise the mental-retardation defense after he was convicted, among other things. "Sorry, I don't buy it," Chief Justice Randall Shepard said in response to one of Green's technical points. "You're going to have to do better."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 11, 2007 09:01 AM
Posted to Courts in general