United States v. Wilson
922 F. Supp. 2d 334
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Wilson murdered two NYPD undercover detectives in 2003 and was sentenced to death; the Second Circuit vacated the death sentence and remanded for a penalty-phase retrial.
- The court held an Atkins hearing to determine if Wilson is mentally retarded under the FDPA and the Eighth Amendment, with multiple experts from both sides.
- The court adopts a definition of mental retardation largely grounded in AAIDD and APA clinical standards, but preserves its own final legal determination of the Atkins/FDPA standard.
- The court addresses IQ testing concepts (SEM, confidence intervals, Flynn and practice effects) and explains it will apply current clinical concepts rather than only historical norms.
- The court concludes Wilson did not prove he is mentally retarded by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore is not barred from execution; the ultimate penalty decision remains with a jury during the penalty phase.
- The burden of proof for Atkins/FDPA claims rests with the defendant, and the court emphasizes it will determine the legal question of mental retardation as a matter of law and the factual question of Wilson’s status as a separate burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of mental retardation for Atkins/FDPA | Wilson relies on modern clinical definitions (AAIDD/APA) | Court should defer to state-law or older clinical definitions | Court adopts modern clinical definitions but retains independent legal judgment |
| Flynn Effect adjustment to IQ scores | Scores should be adjusted (e.g., down) to reflect Flynn effect | Adjustments are not universally accepted in clinical practice | Flynn adjustment applied; 66% CI used; results still do not show MR beyond doubt |
| Practice effect and raw data impact | Adjust for practice effects; raw data crucial | Adjustments not uniformly supported; raw data not determinative | Practice effect considered but no blanket adjustment; raw data weighed but not dispositive |
| Adaptive functioning affecting prong one | Adaptive deficits should bolster intellectual-functioning prong | Adaptive functioning should not substitute for prong one | Adaptive functioning not used to override or substitute prong one; three-prong test applied independently |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (holding execution of mentally retarded unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment)
- Davis v. Md., 611 F. Supp. 2d 472 (D. Md. 2009) (clinical standards inform MR determination; SEM considerations discussed)
- Smith v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D. La. 2011) (repeated use of AAIDD/APA standards and SEM in MR analysis)
- Blue v. Thaler, 665 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2011) (three-prong framework; stability of prongs emphasized)