Coonce v. United States
19-7862
| SCOTUS | Nov 1, 2021Background
- Wesley Paul Coonce Jr. was convicted of federal murder and sentenced to death; he claimed executing him would violate Atkins because he is intellectually disabled.
- Coonce suffered a traumatic brain injury at age 20; his IQ dropped from average to about 71 and defense experts identified adaptive-functioning deficits.
- The district court denied an Atkins hearing; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, relying in part on then-prevailing clinical definitions requiring onset before age 18.
- While Coonce’s cert petition was pending, the AAIDD revised its definition to require onset "before age 22," aligning with DSM‑5’s "developmental period" language.
- The United States (the Government) agreed the AAIDD change could alter the Eighth Circuit’s analysis and requested the Court to GVR (grant, vacate, and remand) for reconsideration; the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Justice Sotomayor dissented from the denial, arguing the AAIDD change and the record evidence warrant a GVR and an Atkins hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coonce is entitled to an Atkins hearing given onset at age 20 | Coonce: age‑20 onset may satisfy "developmental period" and warrants a hearing on intellectual disability | United States/Eighth Circuit: prior clinical standards required onset before 18, so no hearing required | Supreme Court denied cert; Sotomayor would GVR and remand for a hearing |
| Whether intervening AAIDD definitional change warrants GVR | Coonce: AAIDD revision to age‑22 is a material shift in medical consensus that could change outcome | Government: conceded AAIDD change affects a central predicate and requested GVR | Court denied cert; dissent says GVR appropriate because both parties requested it |
| Whether current medical consensus should inform Eighth Amendment analysis | Coonce: DSM‑5 and AAIDD revisions support broader onset window and must inform legal determination | Eighth Circuit: relied on older AAIDD/APA definitions; viewed predicted change as speculative | Sotomayor: medical consensus change is compelling and should be considered on remand |
| Whether the record shows sufficient evidence on IQ and adaptive deficits to affect the ultimate outcome | Coonce: defense testing gave IQ ≈71 and documented adaptive deficits, so outcome may hinge on onset finding | Government: pointed to mixed evidence but did not defend the judgment below or oppose GVR | Dissent: record on two prongs is strong enough that redetermination on onset may determine outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (categorical Eighth Amendment bar on executing intellectually disabled defendants)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (legal inquiry must be informed by clinical standards; rigid IQ cutoffs unconstitutional)
- Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305 (adaptive‑functioning inquiry requires careful evidentiary development)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (use of state practice to discern national consensus on Eighth Amendment limits)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (emphasis on reliability in capital sentencing)
- Lords Landing Village Condominium Council v. Continental Ins. Co., 520 U.S. 893 (GVR appropriate where intervening developments may change outcome)