67 F.4th 1335
11th Cir.2023Background
- Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of 1997 capital murder and sentenced to death after a jury found aggravating factors outweighed mitigation.
- Record shows lifelong educational and adaptive problems: placed in special-education/EMR classes, repeated grades, low literacy, and evidence of childhood abuse; multiple lifetime full-scale IQ scores: 75, 74, 72, 78, 74.
- State courts denied Atkins relief under Alabama’s three-prong test (subaverage intellectual functioning, adaptive‑behavior deficits, onset before 18); district court initially denied habeas; Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
- On remand the district court held an evidentiary hearing with experts for Smith (Drs. Reschly, Fabian, Chudy) and the State (Dr. King), credited petitioner experts and test results (including ILS, achievement and vocabulary tests), discredited Dr. King’s ABAS-3 reliance on self-report, and found Smith intellectually disabled under Alabama law.
- The district court vacated Smith’s death sentence; the Eleventh Circuit in this opinion affirms, holding the district court did not clearly err in finding intellectual disability (considering IQ SEM, adaptive deficits, and developmental onset).
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Alabama's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly considered adaptive‑functioning evidence after IQ SEM lower bound ≤ 70 | Smith: lowest IQ (72) yields lower SEM bound of 69 → must consider adaptive deficits per Hall/Moore | Alabama: consistent borderline scores mean SEM should carry less weight; scores are above 70 | Court: affirmed—SEM requires moving to adaptive evidence; Hall and Moore control |
| Whether Smith proved significantly subaverage intellectual functioning | Smith: range-based analysis (SEM) and expert testimony show true IQ could be ≤ 70 | Alabama: all scores cluster in borderline range; consistency undermines SEM effect | Court: affirmed—district court reasonably credited testimony that SEM could place true IQ ≤ 70 |
| Whether Smith proved significant adaptive‑behavior deficits | Smith: multiple experts, ILS, achievement and vocabulary tests, school records show deficits in conceptual, social, practical domains | Alabama: Dr. King’s ABAS‑3 showed few deficits and strengths in home living/academics; prison records show normal functioning | Court: affirmed—district court credibly discredited ABAS‑3/self‑reporting and prison records (controlled setting) and found deficits |
| Whether deficits manifested before age 18 (developmental‑onset prong) | Smith: school placements (EMR/educable ID), low achievement and records show early onset | Alabama: challenged experts’ retrospective bases and Dr. Reschly’s lack of childhood personal exam | Court: affirmed—school records and expert interpretation support finding of developmental onset |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (prohibits execution of intellectually disabled offenders)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (when IQ score lies within test SEM margin courts must permit presentation of adaptive‑functioning evidence)
- Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 (lower end of IQ range controls; courts must consider adaptive functioning and medical standards)
- Ex parte Perkins, 851 So. 2d 453 (Ala. 2002) (Alabama three‑prong definition of intellectual disability)
- Ledford v. Warden, 818 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2016) (clear‑error review of factual findings on intellectual disability)