808 F.3d 1041
5th Cir.2015Background
- Kevan Brumfield was convicted of first-degree murder (1995) and sentenced to death; he later sought habeas relief claiming intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia.
- State courts denied an Atkins hearing; Brumfield obtained federal funds to develop expert evidence and the district court held a multi-day Atkins evidentiary hearing in 2010.
- The district court found Brumfield met Louisiana’s statutory three-part test for intellectual disability (subaverage intellectual functioning, adaptive deficits in at least one domain, onset before age 18) and granted habeas relief, rendering him ineligible for execution.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed on AEDPA §2254(d) grounds without addressing the merits; the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding Brumfield satisfied §2254(d) and was entitled to a merits determination on Atkins.
- On remand this Court reviewed the district court’s factual finding of intellectual disability for clear error and affirmed: the district court’s findings on IQ scores, adaptive (conceptual) deficits, and onset before 18 were plausible in light of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brumfield met the intellectual-functioning prong (IQ) | Brumfield: multiple full-scale IQ scores (70–75) and their confidence intervals satisfy subaverage functioning; scores stable over time; malingering excluded | State: earlier records and characterizations indicate higher IQ range (70–85); low effort may have depressed scores | Held: Not clearly erroneous — all reported full-scale scores ≤75 and confidence intervals include ≤70; experts agreed the prong was met |
| Whether Brumfield showed significant adaptive deficits (conceptual, social, practical) | Brumfield: expert testimony and school/medical records show severe academic lag, 4th-grade reading, poor writing, plateaued achievement — significant conceptual deficits | State: criminal planning, coherent confessions, employment-like conduct (drug dealing), prison communications show adaptive strengths; prior evaluations diagnosed conduct disorder not ID | Held: Not clearly erroneous — district court credited petitioner’s experts as to conceptual deficits; deficits in one domain suffice |
| Whether deficits manifested before age 18 (onset requirement) | Brumfield: school records, special education placement, developmental history, etiological risk factors (low birth weight, fetal distress, maternal issues), and no organic cause for late decline | State: lack of prior ID diagnosis and multiple childhood evaluations suggest no onset in developmental years | Held: Not clearly erroneous — poor childhood academic performance and etiological evidence support onset during developmental years |
| Standard of review/applicability of AEDPA after Supreme Court remand | Brumfield: Supreme Court already held §2254(d) satisfied; merits review appropriate; appellate standard is clear-error for factual findings | State: urged deference to state-court findings and relied on alternative evidence to refute ID | Held: Clear-error standard applies; district court’s factual findings were plausible and therefore affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons prohibited; clinical standards guide implementation)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (rejected rigid IQ cutoffs; standard error of measurement must be considered)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (2015) (Supreme Court held Brumfield satisfied §2254(d) and was entitled to merits consideration of Atkins claim)
- State v. Williams, 831 So.2d 835 (La. 2002) (Louisiana adopted clinical AAIDD/APA framework for assessing intellectual disability)
- Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (clear-error standard described for appellate review of district court factual findings)