United States v. Salad
959 F. Supp. 2d 865
E.D. Va.2013Background
- Salad moved to bar death penalty under Atkins and FDPA; court held Atkins claim under preponderance burden; three-pronged test governs intellectual disability; no reliable Somalia-normed IQ measures available; TONI tests yielded higher scores (75/76) while nonverbal tests yielded lower scores (63/48) but overall not showing significant subaverage functioning; adaptive-functioning evidence unreliable due to hearsay and cultural baseline issues; court found Salad not intellectually disabled and thus eligible for death penalty.
- Salad is Somali, age mid-to-late 20s, with no formal schooling, educated in Quranic madrassa, later joined Puntland militia, served in Presidential Guard, and has limited English; evidence largely through interpreters and in-country interviews with reliability concerns; no pre-age eighteen adaptive-deficit consensus supported by most experts.
- No formal tools normed to nomadic Somalis; standard error of measurement and interpretation complexities influence IQ analyses; court emphasizes reliability over any single score; practice effect not applied; burden on Salad to prove disability.
- Adaptive functioning assessment relied on questionable interview reports and a conjectural Somali baseline; United States experts found no substantial adaptive deficits; Dr. Patton’s conclusions criticized for reliability and alternative explanations (loss of mother, abuse, cultural factors) undermining attribution to intellectual disability.
- Post-arrest adaptive-skills evidence deemed insufficient to support disability finding; jail behavior not dispositive under AAIDD guidelines; overall, prong one and prong two not met; prong three not addressed; Atkins motion denied; Salad not intellectually disabled and thus death-penalty eligible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salad shows significantly subaverage intellectual functioning | Salad failed prong one using TONI-4 scores of 75 and 76; nonverbal measures support subaverage functioning. | TONI scores are unreliable given cultural context; higher TONI results argue against disability. | No; prong one not proven by preponderance. |
| Whether Salad has significant adaptive-functioning deficits | Dr. Patton establishes conceptual and practical deficits before 18. | Adaptive data unreliable; alternative explanations (loss of mother, schooling) undermine deficits. | No; prong two not proven. |
| Whether onset before age 18 is established given prongs one and two | Deficits predate 18 to meet Atkins criteria. | Without prongs one and two, prong three cannot rescue claim. | Not addressed separately due to failure of prongs one and two. |
| Whether the Atkins claim should be denied based on procedural/standards considerations | Legal standards permit consideration of clinical judgment; reliable analysis supports disability. | unreliable data and baselines; burden on Salad remains unmet. | Not necessary to reach separate prong three; overall Atkins claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2012) (burden on Atkins claim by preponderance; legal framework for prong one)
- United States v. Wilson, 922 F.Supp.2d 334 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (discussion of IQ testing reliability and SEM in Atkins context)
- Holladay v. Allen, 555 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.2009) (premise that problems must have existed before crime for disability)
- Walker v. Kelly, 593 F.3d 319 (4th Cir.2010) (emphasizes retrospective analysis in adaptive functioning)
- United States v. Davis, 611 F.Supp.2d 472 (D. Md.2009) (adaptive-functioning assessment considerations in Atkins claims)
- United States v. Nelson, 419 F.Supp.2d 891 (E.D.La.2006) (importance of test reliability/credibility in IQ evidence)