The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Bruce Webster, an inmate on the fed­er­al death row with evi­dence that he is intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abed. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the exe­cu­tion of a per­son with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties (men­tal retar­da­tion) would be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Webster’s evi­dence indi­cates that three fed­er­al doc­tors deter­mined he had an intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty when he applied for dis­abil­i­ty ben­e­fits in 1993, a year before he com­mit­ted the mur­der that result­ed in his death sen­tence. However, a 1996 law pro­hibits fed­er­al courts from con­sid­er­ing new evi­dence dis­cov­ered late in the appeals process unless it would prove the defendant’s inno­cence. In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Webster had exhaust­ed his appeals and his recent evi­dence of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty could not be con­sid­ered, even though it would bar his exe­cu­tion if allowed in. Judge Jacques Wiener, writ­ing for the court, expressed dis­may at the restraint of the law, stat­ing, ​“We today have no choice but to con­done just such an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al pun­ish­ment.” (A com­pa­ra­ble sit­u­a­tion would be the belat­ed dis­cov­ery that an inmate was a juve­nile at the time of his crime – anoth­er bar to exe­cu­tion, but per­haps pro­duc­ing a different result.)

(S. Goldstein, ​“High court denies appeal of men­tal­ly retard­ed man who helped rape, kill Arlington teen,” Dallas Morning News, December 6, 2010). See Intellectual Disability and U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags
Citation Guide