Steven Long v. Lorie Davis, Director
663 F. App'x 361
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Eleven-year-old Kaitlyn Smith was murdered in 2005; a bloody fingerprint matched Steven Long, who confessed and was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas state court.
- During the penalty phase, prosecution presented Long’s history of violence and sexual deviance; defense presented mitigation focused on his neglectful childhood, abuse, and evidence suggesting low IQ.
- Multiple mental-health evaluations produced conflicting IQ scores: some tests showed IQs around 62 (suggesting intellectual disability), while other clinicians concluded Long was malingering and not intellectually disabled.
- State habeas proceedings included an evidentiary hearing; the state trial court recommended denial and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief. Long then filed federal habeas petitions asserting Atkins intellectual-disability claims.
- The federal district court denied relief and refused a six-month continuance for retesting; Long sought a Certificate of Appealability (COA) from the Fifth Circuit on the Atkins/intellectual-disability issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Long was properly tested/evaluated for intellectual disability before trial | Long: experts did not adequately test him for intellectual disability; some did no testing | Government: at least one expert evaluated Long on relevant criteria; multiple experts concluded he was not intellectually disabled | Court: No debatable error; record supports that Long was evaluated and experts agreed he was not intellectually disabled |
| Whether low IQ scores reflect true intellectual disability or malingering | Long: consistency across low scores and lifestyle evidence support true low IQ; Dr. Milam supported low IQ | Government: experts reasonably found malingering given incentives, inconsistent behavior, and poor performance only after charges | Court: State court reasonably found malingering; not debatable under AEDPA deferential standard |
| Whether adaptive deficits were related to intellectual disability | Long: life history consistent with intellectual disability | Government: adaptive deficits better explained by drug use, personality, family dysfunction | Court: Long failed to show adaptive deficits tied to intellectual disability as required under Texas law |
| Whether denial of a six-month continuance for additional malingering testing violated due process | Long: additional testing was necessary to resolve the contested malingering issue | Government: Long offered no evidence the testing would change results; state court provided full opportunity to be heard | Court: Denial of continuance did not deprive Long of due process; no substantial prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Sup. Ct.) (death penalty inapplicable to intellectually disabled defendants)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for COA when district court rejects constitutional claims on the merits)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (Sup. Ct.) (AEDPA deferential standard for federal habeas review)
- Moore v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 454 (5th Cir.) (resolving COA doubts in favor of petitioner in death-penalty cases)
- Tercero v. Stephens, 738 F.3d 141 (5th Cir.) (due process satisfied where petitioner had a full opportunity to be heard)