9 F.4th 646
8th Cir.2021Background
- Alvin Bernal Jackson, convicted of two murders (one in 1989, one in 1996), was sentenced to death for the 1996 prison-guard killing; he has long claimed intellectual disability under Atkins.
- Multiple prior federal appeals resulted in remands for further proceedings and an Atkins evidentiary hearing; experts testified for both sides (Dr. Moneypenny for Jackson; Dr. Macvaugh for the State).
- Childhood IQ test scores recorded were 72, 73, 74, and 81; district court on remand applied a ±5 point standard error of measurement (SEM) to the childhood scores, producing ranges with three lower bounds at or below 70.
- The district court found Jackson had clinically significant adaptive deficits across conceptual, social, and practical domains based on childhood records, that these deficits manifested before age 18, and it gave little weight to adaptive strengths or prison-based improvements.
- The State appealed, arguing the district court erred on IQ evidence, SEM application, adaptive-function analysis (including discounting adaptive strengths/prison conduct), and timing; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intellectual-functioning prong: Are Jackson's IQs indicative of significantly below-average intelligence? | Jackson: Childhood IQs, with SEM ±5, yield lower-range scores at or below 70, satisfying the intellectual-functioning criterion. | State: Childhood scores are unreliable/invalid or should use a smaller SEM; recent adult tests are invalid due to malingering; expert opinion that Jackson is borderline should control. | Court: Applied ±5 SEM to childhood scores per Moore/Hall/DSM‑5 consensus; the low end at/below 70 required moving to adaptive analysis; no clear error. |
| Adaptive-functioning prong: Did Jackson show significant adaptive deficits and must adaptive deficits be linked exclusively to intellectual deficits? | Jackson: Childhood records and expert testimony show deficits in conceptual, social, and practical domains; Moore requires focus on deficits, not strengths or prison improvements, and does not require excluding other comorbid disorders. | State: DSM‑5 recommends standardized measures and knowledgeable informants; incarceration limits reliable assessment; adaptive strengths and prison improvements undermine the claim. | Court: Substantial childhood documentary evidence supports adaptive deficits; Moore forbids overreliance on prison-acquired strengths and does not require excluding other disorders; court did not clearly err. |
| Manifestation timing: Must deficits be shown by age 18 or at time of crime/execution? | Jackson: Deficits manifested in childhood; DSM‑5 and precedents recognize intellectual disability is generally lifelong—showing manifestation by 18 suffices. | State: Evidence of deficits is from childhood, not contemporaneous with the capital crime; contest relevance. | Court: Found substantial evidence of manifestation before 18; Supreme Court precedents (Moore) permit reliance on childhood/adult records showing lifelong disorder; no clear error. |
| Overall sufficiency / burden: Did Jackson meet his burden to prove intellectual disability by preponderance, and did district court impermissibly shift burden? | Jackson: Met his burden with IQ ranges and adaptive evidence; expert testimony for State was equivocal and did not definitively rule out ID. | State: Record is inconclusive; credible State expert found insufficient data; district court improperly disregarded adaptive strengths and shifted burden to State. | Court: No clear error; district court reasonably credited childhood records and expert equivocation for State; burden remained with Jackson and was met by preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled persons)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (courts must account for IQ test standard error of measurement)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (state courts must focus on adaptive deficits, account for SEM, and avoid overvaluing prison-based strengths)
- Moore v. Texas, 139 S. Ct. 666 (2019) (reinforcing Moore I and reversing state court’s refusal to find intellectual disability)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (2015) (Hall and measurement principles applied in habeas/Atkins context)
- Jackson v. Kelley, 898 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2018) (prior remand and guidance applying Moore/Hall to Jackson’s claim)
- Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2013) (framework for Arkansas statutory prongs and burden of proof)
- Phelps-Roper v. Ricketts, 867 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2017) (clear-error standard for factual findings)