The Appellate Division of New Jersey​’s Superior Court in State v. Jimenez announced new pro­ce­dures on August 17, 2005 for decid­ing claims of men­tal retar­da­tion by a defen­dant fac­ing the death penal­ty:

(a) the State must be put to the bur­den of prov­ing the absence of men­tal retar­da­tion when a col­orable issue is pre­sent­ed; (b) the State’s bur­den is to prove the absence of men­tal retar­da­tion beyond a rea­son­able doubt; (c) the jury must be the factfind­er; and (d) a defen­dant may nev­er be put to any bur­den of per­sua­sion at any pre­tri­al pro­ceed­ing con­cern­ing the issue.
‑from the con­cur­ring opin­ion. See the entire opin­ion: http://​www​.judi​cia​ry​.state​.nj​.us/​o​p​i​n​i​o​n​s​/​a​3​7​3​6​-​0​4.pdf.

In Louisiana on August 9, 2005 in a pre-tri­al rul­ing by Louisiana State District Court Judge Stephen Beasley in the case of State v. Jimmy Turner, 11th JDC, Sabine Parish, the court found Louisiana’s law pro­vid­ing pro­ce­dures for the deter­mi­na­tion of men­tal retar­da­tion in a cap­i­tal case to be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al on sev­er­al grounds. In par­tic­u­lar, the court found the use of a death-qual­i­fied jury to make the find­ing of men­tal retar­da­tion to be prone to error.



Citation Guide