William Wiley v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23186
5th Cir.2010Background
- Wiley committed capital murder in 1981–1982 in Mississippi and was sentenced to death multiple times, with direct appeals and state/post-conviction proceedings occurring over years.
- Wiley filed an Atkins-based claim in state court and later in federal court; the Mississippi Supreme Court denied an evidentiary hearing on the Atkins claim.
- Wiley submitted affidavits and IQ/adaptive functioning evidence (notably Dr. Grant’s 2003 WAIS-III scores) suggesting mentally retardation, with prior testing showing subthreshold IQ scores.
- The Chase framework governs Mississippi’s Atkins procedure, requiring a prima facie showing and an evidentiary hearing with expert testing and malingering safeguards.
- The federal district court held Wiley was mentally retarded based on a preponderance of the evidence and denied deference to the state court due to due-process concerns from the state’s failure to hold a hearing.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviews de novo legal questions and factual findings for clear error, applying AEDPA standards and Panetti/Rivera guidance to due-process implications of state procedural errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wiley showed a prima facie case warranting a state Atkins hearing | Wiley satisfied Chase by affidavits/evidence meeting thresholds. | Wiley’s pre-Atkins scores or evidence did not satisfy Chase or due process for a hearing. | Yes; the court found a prima facie case warranted a hearing. |
| Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court’s denial of a hearing violated due process and affected AEDPA deference | State court’s denial without a hearing violated due process; deference should be limited under Rivera/Panetti. | State court applied Chase and followed state-law standards; no due process violation. | Yes; the state court’s failure to provide a hearing did violate due process and affected deference. |
| Whether Wiley’s IQ evidence supports subaverage intellectual functioning under Atkins | Multiple IQ tests/adjusted and unadjusted scores show subaverage functioning consistent with Atkins. | Some scores exceed the threshold and Flynn effect arguments are contested; insufficient for retardation. | Yes; the district court’s finding of subaverage intellectual functioning was not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether adaptive-functioning deficits were shown before age eighteen | Adaptive deficits evidenced by standardized tests and retrospective interviews meet Chase criteria. | Affidavits challenging adaptive deficits and lack of standardized testing undermine the claim. | Yes; the record supports deficits in adaptive functioning before 18. |
| Whether malingering was credibly ruled out and testing procedures were adequate | Multiple tests (TOMM, ABAS-Vineland, etc.) show no malingering; experts testify to credibility. | Testing reliability and retrospective methods could be flawed; dispute over tests. | Yes; the evidence supported no malingering and adequate testing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded individuals)
- Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013 (Miss. 2004) (Mississippi standard for Atkins hearing and evidence; Chase requirements)
- Rivera v. Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (unreasonably applying law when failing to provide hearing undermines AEDPA deference)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 934 (U.S. 2007) (due process and competency principles inform post-Atkins review)
- Moore v. Quarterman, 533 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (AEDPA deference alongside state-court error in habeas proceedings)
- Thorson v. State, 994 So. 2d 707 (Miss. 2007) (post-Chase cases granting hearings despite some elevated IQ scores)
- Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690 (Miss. 2009) (adaptive-functioning assessment and Chase framework guidance)