On June 18, a fed­er­al appeals court in Atlanta held that the bur­den Georgia places on death-penal­ty defen­dants to prove they are intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled, and thus exempt from the death penal­ty, is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said that requir­ing defen­dants to prove intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty (men­tal retar­da­tion) ​“beyond a rea­son­able doubt” vio­lates the Eighth Amendment’s ban against cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ments. It could also result in the exe­cu­tion of intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled defen­dants, which the U.S. Supreme Court barred in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia. ​“This con­cep­tion of the rea­son­able doubt stan­dard, by its very terms, ensures that some, if not many, men­tal­ly retard­ed offend­ers will be exe­cut­ed in vio­la­tion of the Eighth Amendment,” said the court. Fred Bright, a dis­trict attor­ney in Georgia, said the rul­ing came as no sur­prise. ​“I like to try a death case once and get it right the first time. I knew Georgia’s law was hang­ing by a thread because it was all the way out there all by itself.” The rul­ing could result in new hear­ings for 10 death row inmates accord­ing to the Georgia Appellate Practice and Educational Resource Center. The defen­dant in the cur­rent case is Warren Hill, who was sen­tenced to death in 1991 despite evi­dence that he was mentally retarded.

(B. Rankin, ​“Mental retar­da­tion bur­den of proof in death cas­es uncon­sti­tu­tion­al,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 18, 2010). See also Intellectual Disability.

Citation Guide