The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether the death sentence applied to a convicted murderer represents cruel and unusual punishment based on his debatable intellectual disability.
The state of Alabama argues that five IQ test scores for Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted of capital murder for the 1997 killing of Durk Van Dam, demonstrate that he isn’t disabled.
Smith’s five IQ tests revealed scores of 72, 74, 75, 74, and 78, which fell within or near the range associated with intellectual disability. Alabama and other states regard IQ scores of 70 or below to be the standard for judging intellectual disabilities.
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court set three criteria for determining if someone is mentally competent to be executed: significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, significant deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifestation of these qualities before age 18.
“Atkins created an exception for offenders known to be intellectually disabled, but Smith is not,” Alabama Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing told the justices.
Courts ‘Changed the Rules’
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith’s death sentence and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the district court ruling. These courts “changed the rules,” Overing argued.
“They took the lowest score to represent a possibility that Smith’s IQ is 69,” he said. “Then, to the extent they considered other scores, they took each only in isolation, and moved the line to 75. These maneuvers expanded Atkins, and this court should reverse that expansion.”
Smith is challenging his death sentence under the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. He also claims the sentence violates his 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the laws.
Other Factors
Seth Waxman, the U.S. solicitor general during the Clinton administration who is now representing Smith, asserted the relevance of factors beyond IQ tests.
Waxman said Alabama law “requires courts to evaluate all provident evidence as to intellectual functioning offered by either side.”
The lawyer cited Smith’s “grade school records, which showed that on every measure, he was two to four years below grade average, culminating in a diagnosis of mental retardation in the seventh grade.”
The Trump administration has sided with the state of Alabama.
Smith, now 55, beat Van Dam to death with a hammer and stole his boots and $140 from him in the 1997 crime, Reuters reported.
The Justices Weigh in
“I think what you’ve done is shift this to be all about the IQ test in a way that is not supported by our case law,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a President Joe Biden appointee, told Overing.
After some back and forth, Overing explained his point.
“IQ is originally how intellectual disability was defined as a condition, and it’s always been the primary criterion, and states are allowed to take the best evidence of intelligence, and to make that the test,” the Alabama solicitor argued.
Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, asked Waxman about a hypothetically wide divergence of scores. Justice Samuel Alito, another George W. Bush appointee, later asked about a hypothetical of four IQ test scores in the 90s, and one at 71.
Waxman said the court would hear expert testimony on the matter.
“There may very well be expert testimony, maybe even agreement, that the 71 is, in fact, the result of the inquiry, or that it is a statistical outlier, and taking into account other evidence relevant to intellectual functioning should be disregarded,” Waxman said. He stressed, however, that this isn’t the question in his client’s case.
“What we have here are two experts who said four of the five scores are within the range of intellectual disability,” Waxman said. “The district court itself specifically found that, and so we’re not in that hypothetical range.”
