Alabama pros­e­cu­tors have agreed that Renard Marcel Daniel (pic­tured) should be resen­tenced to life with­out parole, after the state’s men­tal health expert admin­is­tered psy­cho­log­i­cal tests to Daniel that showed the intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled man had an IQ of 48. Earlier in January, Daniel’s lawyers — with the con­sent of the Alabama Attorney General’s office — filed a motion in fed­er­al dis­trict court joint­ly ask­ing the court to vacate Daniel’s death sen­tence and return his case to state court for him to be resen­tenced. Daniel, who was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 2003, was rep­re­sent­ed at tri­al by lawyers who nev­er spoke with him until three days before his tri­al. He argued in his state and fed­er­al appeals that his death sen­tence should be over­turned because his lawyers had failed to inves­ti­gate and present exten­sive evi­dence of his intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty and hor­rif­i­cal­ly trau­mat­ic child­hood. The inves­ti­ga­tion by Daniel’s appeal lawyers dis­cov­ered that, when Daniel was only three years old, his moth­er killed his father with a shot­gun while Daniel was in the home. They learned that before Daniel was even a teenag­er, his step­fa­ther began sex­u­al­ly assault­ing him and forced him to engage in sex acts on his sib­lings. His step­fa­ther, they found, also reg­u­lar­ly beat Daniel, one time so severe­ly that he had to be hos­pi­tal­ized with a rup­tured kid­ney. School records that tri­al coun­sel failed to obtain also showed that Daniel was placed in spe­cial edu­ca­tion class­es and suf­fered from severe­ly defi­cient intel­lec­tu­al func­tion­ing from a young age, and was read­ing at only a sec­ond-grade lev­el when he was thir­teen. Yet despite being pre­sent­ed a trun­cat­ed ver­sion of Daniel’s trau­mat­ic child­hood through brief tes­ti­mo­ny by his moth­er at tri­al, two jurors rec­om­mend­ed that Daniel be sen­tenced to life. But Alabama law per­mit­ted the tri­al judge to impose a death sen­tence with­out a unan­i­mous jury vote, and the court sen­tenced him to death. Alabama’s state courts and the Alabama fed­er­al dis­trict court reject­ed Daniel’s appeals with­out an evi­den­tiary hear­ing. However, in May 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, call­ing Daniel’s child­hood night­mar­ish by any stan­dard,” ruled that the state courts had unrea­son­ably denied his claims. It reversed the dis­trict court’s deci­sion dis­miss­ing Daniel’s habeas peti­tion and direct­ed the court to con­duct an evi­den­tiary hear­ing on Daniel’s penal­ty-stage inef­fec­tive­ness claim. In prepa­ra­tion for that hear­ing, the State’s expert mea­sured Daniel’s IQ at 48, more than 20 IQ points below the accept­ed star­dard for diag­nos­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia that sub­ject­ing peo­ple with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty to the death penal­ty vio­lates the Eighth Amendment’s pro­hi­bi­tion against cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ments, and state pros­e­cu­tors agreed that Daniel should be resen­tenced to life.

(Andrew Cohen, Justice Poker, The Marshall Project, January 29, 2018; When Capital Punishment Is a Game of Chance [audio sto­ry], The Takeaway, January 30, 2018; Kelsey Stein, Alabama inmate con­vict­ed in dou­ble mur­der to get new hear­ing on death sen­tence, Al​.com, May 17, 2016.) Read the Eleventh Circuit Opinion. See Intellectual Disability.

Citation Guide