Is it cruel and unusual? Supreme Court seeks new decision in case of convicted murderer with low IQ
Alabama says an appeals court ‘misapplied law and logic’ in preventing the execution of Joseph Clifton Smith, who has an IQ in the 70s. He has been on death row since 1997.
WASHINGTON − On Monday, the Supreme Court chose not to decide whether a convicted murderer’s intellectual disability is severe enough to exempt him from execution, instead instructing a lower court to clarify its ruling.
This ruling occurred despite dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who expressed their willingness to support Alabama’s request for a court review of the ruling and to possibly reassess prior decisions on how states evaluate intellectual disabilities to prevent cruel and unusual punishment.
The Alabama Board of Corrections claimed that an appeals court “misapplied law and logic” in determining that the state cannot execute Joseph Clifton Smith, whose IQ falls in the 70s.
Alabama sought a reversal of that judgement from the Supreme Court and urged a reexamination of past rulings addressing how states assess intellectual disabilities to avoid constitutional violations.
Fourteen other states with Republican attorneys general also requested the Supreme Court’s intervention, arguing that interpretations of the Eighth Amendment regarding excessive punishments have turned into a “roving commission” that forces judges to act like sociologists when determining what constitutes a breach of evolving standards of decency.
They argued this has weakened states’ capacity to combat crime.
An IQ below 70
In 2002, the Supreme Court decided that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities breaches the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequent rulings in 2014 and 2016 criticized Florida and Texas for their methods of evaluating intellectual disability.
Under Alabama law, intellectual disability is defined as having an IQ of 70 or below, significant deficits in adaptive behavior, and the manifestation of these characteristics before the age of 18.
Smith’s IQ scores have fluctuated between 72 and 78.
The Alabama Board of Corrections contends that lower courts focused solely on Smith’s lowest recorded score and, considering the inherent error range in IQ tests, suggested that his score could be as low as 69.
Smith’s attorneys asserted that the district judge factored in additional evidence, taking into account Smith’s behavioral skills. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that this evaluation adhered to the standards set by the Supreme Court.
However, Alabama sought clarification from the Supreme Court on whether the appeals court erred, and if not, invited the justices to revisit their standards.
In a brief ruling on Monday, the court explained that the appeals court’s decision was ambiguous about whether it had employed a comprehensive approach to evaluating evidence of Smith’s disability or if it had primarily relied on his lowest IQ score. This clarification may influence whether the justices intend to review the ruling, as stated in an unsigned opinion that nullified the appeals court’s judgement and requested a new ruling.
The opinion highlighted that the Supreme Court “has not delineated how courts ought to consider multiple IQ scores.”
On death row since 1997
Smith was found guilty and sentenced to death for the murder of Durk Van Dam in 1997, who suffered 35 blunt force injuries and severe cuts from a saw to his neck, shoulder, and back.
Senior U.S. District Judge Callie V. S. Granade acknowledged that evaluating Smith’s mental capacity was a “close case” but noted, “the evidence suggests that Smith’s intelligence and adaptive functioning have been deficient throughout his life.”
