Intellectual Disability in Capital Murder Cases

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

article

Joshuah D. Jackson¹  Keri Ann Stevenson¹  Bruce J. Cohen¹ 

[1] Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences University of Virginia School of Medicine Charlottesville

关键词: intellectual disability;    Atkins v;    Virginia;    death penalty;    mitigation;    expert testimony;   

DOI  :  10.29158/JAAPL.210081-21

学科分类：儿科学

来源: American Academy of Psychiatry The Law

【 摘 要 】

intellectual disabilityAtkins v. Virginiadeath penaltymitigationexpert testimonyFailure to Introduce Mitigating Evidence That Does Not Outweigh the Aggravating Evidence It Invites Does Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of CounselIn Rodriguez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 818 F. App'x 945 (11th Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida properly denied Mr. Rodriguez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel at his capital sentencing hearing (because of failure to present mitigating evidence) as well as ineligibility for the death penalty because of intellectual disability. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that because the postconviction mitigating evidence Mr. Rodriguez presented was weak, there is not a substantial likelihood that the imposed penalty would have been different had his attorney acted differently. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the lower courts appropriately applied Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) in rejecting the intellectual disability diagnosis, given Mr. Rodriguez's failure to present clear and convincing evidence of below average intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior deficits with onset prior to age 18, as required by Florida law.

【 授权许可】

All Rights reserved