924 F.3d 1330
11th Cir.2019Background
- In 1992 an Alabama jury convicted Willie B. Smith III of capital murder and recommended death (10–2); state court proceedings followed including direct appeal, remand for Batson hearing, and Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings addressing intellectual disability (Atkins claim).
- During voir dire the prosecutor used 14 of 15 peremptory strikes on women and also struck several Black venire members and the only Hispanic venire member; trial court initially found no prima facie discrimination, but the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found a prima facie gender showing and remanded for reasons.
- On remand the prosecutor justified strikes by reference to church involvement, age, demeanor, employment, and lack of participation; trial court credited those reasons and the Alabama CCA affirmed; certiorari was denied.
- In state Rule 32 proceedings experts offered conflicting IQ scores for Smith (Dr. Salekin: 64; Dr. King: 72) and disagreed about adaptive deficits; the Rule 32 court and Alabama CCA concluded Smith failed to prove intellectual disability under Alabama’s Perkins standard.
- Smith sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising (1) Atkins-related intellectual disability issues including retroactivity of Moore v. Texas, and (2) Batson/J.E.B. claims that the prosecutor discriminatorily struck jurors by gender and national origin; the district court denied relief and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore v. Texas applies retroactively on federal habeas to Smith’s Atkins claim | Moore announced a new substantive rule expanding who is exempt from execution and therefore is retroactive under Teague’s substantive-exception | Moore is procedural (governs method for assessing disability), not substantive; thus not retroactive absent Teague’s rare second exception | Moore is not retroactive; it is procedural and does not meet Teague’s watershed exception |
| Whether Alabama unreasonably applied Atkins in assessing intellectual functioning (IQ) | Alabama improperly credited a 72 IQ over a 64 IQ, refused to average scores, and failed to apply Flynn Effect/standard error—an unreasonable application of Atkins | Atkins left states discretion to define intellectual disability; at the time Atkins/Hall did not mandate averaging or Flynn adjustments | State court’s treatment of IQ scores was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA |
| Whether Alabama unreasonably applied Atkins in assessing adaptive functioning (weighing strengths vs. deficits) | State courts impermissibly weighed adaptive strengths against deficits, contrary to Moore and Atkins | At the time of state proceedings Moore was not decided; Atkins left adaptive-function analysis to states | Pre-Moore approach of weighing strengths against deficits was acceptable then; not an unreasonable application of Atkins under AEDPA (but Moore would now prohibit such weighing) |
| Whether prosecutor’s peremptory strikes violated Batson/J.E.B. (gender and national origin) | Struck 14 of 15 strikes against women and excluded the sole Hispanic venire member; inconsistent treatment (e.g., an unstruck male with church ties) shows pretext | Prosecutor offered race- and gender-neutral reasons (church involvement, susceptibility to mercy argument, youth, lack of participation, demeanor); trial court corroborated reasons and found them credible | State courts’ credibility findings were reasonable; Batson challenge fails under AEDPA deference (no clear convincing evidence of discriminatory intent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of persons with intellectual disability; left definition to states)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (three-step test for challenging peremptory strikes as discriminatory)
- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (peremptory strikes based on gender unconstitutional)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (courts must be informed by medical diagnostic framework; consider standard error when scores are near cutoff)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (states must follow current clinical standards and not weigh adaptive strengths against deficits)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules on federal habeas)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006) (habeas petitioner must show it was unreasonable to credit prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (prima facie showing and evidence for discriminatory intent in juror strikes)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (trial court may consider juror demeanor to evaluate prosecutor’s explanation)