2019 U.S. LEXIS 821
U.S.2019Background
- Bobby James Moore was convicted and faced the death penalty; a state habeas trial court found he had intellectual disability and thus was ineligible for execution.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) reversed that finding in Ex parte Moore I, concluding Moore had not proven adaptive deficits; U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded, criticizing the CCA’s use of Briseno factors and other departures from clinical standards.
- On remand the CCA again found Moore ineligible for relief (Ex parte Moore II), asserting reliance on DSM‑5 standards and crediting the State’s expert, but the opinion emphasized perceived adaptive strengths and prison‑acquired skills.
- Moore and the Harris County district attorney (who agreed Moore is intellectually disabled) sought Supreme Court review; the Texas Attorney General moved to intervene to defend the CCA decision.
- The Supreme Court summarily reversed the CCA, holding that the CCA’s remand opinion repeated the same analytical errors (overemphasis on strengths, reliance on prison improvements, vestiges of Briseno, and improper treatment of comorbidities) and that the trial record shows Moore is intellectually disabled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore meets clinical criteria for intellectual disability (intellectual & adaptive deficits with onset before age 18) | Moore: trial record shows early onset, intellectual deficits, and adaptive functioning ~2 SDs below mean | CCA/Texas: Moore failed to prove adaptive deficits by preponderance; cited observed competencies | Court: CCA’s analysis repeated prior errors; record demonstrates intellectual disability; reversed CCA |
| Proper role of Briseno evidentiary factors | Moore: Briseno is outdated and inconsistent with medical standards | CCA/Texas: relied on Briseno‑style factors to evaluate deficits | Court: Briseno factors are improper; CCA in substance continued to use them, which tainted the analysis |
| Reliance on adaptive strengths gained in prison | Moore: clinicians caution against using skills developed in controlled settings to deny disability | CCA/Texas: pointed to prison‑acquired reading, commissary math, coherent filings/testimony | Court: caution against valuing prison‑developed strengths; CCA overemphasized such evidence |
| Treatment of comorbid mental‑health/personality issues as excluding disability | Moore: presence of personality or emotional disorders does not negate intellectual disability | CCA/Texas: attributed social deficits to emotional problems rather than general cognitive deficits | Court: requirement that deficits not be explained by emotional problems departs from clinical practice; such comorbidities do not preclude disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons violates Eighth Amendment)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (Eighth Amendment requires intellectual‑disability determinations be informed by prevailing medical standards)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (state court‑formulated evidentiary factors for assessing mental retardation; criticized by Supreme Court)
- Ex parte Moore (Moore I), 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (CCA decision initially finding Moore not intellectually disabled)
- Ex parte Moore (Moore II), 548 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (CCA decision on remand again finding Moore not intellectually disabled)
- United States v. Johnston, 268 U.S. 220 (1925) (principle that Supreme Court generally does not reweigh facts on review)