Twenty months after the Unites States Supreme Court unan­i­mous­ly struck down Texass non-sci­en­tif­ic stan­dard for eval­u­at­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty in death penal­ty cas­es, the land­mark case in which it made that deci­sion is back before the Court. On December 7, 2018, the Court will con­fer­ence Moore v. Texas, to decide if it will review whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) once again uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly relied on lay stereo­types and non-clin­i­cal cri­te­ria in reject­ing Bobby James Moores claim that he is not sub­ject to the death penal­ty because he is intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled. A diverse group of promi­nent voic­es, includ­ing the dis­trict attorney’s office that orig­i­nal­ly pros­e­cut­ed Moore, argue that Moore clear­ly sat­is­fies the clin­i­cal def­i­n­i­tions of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty and may not be executed.

Sentenced to death more than 38 years ago, Moore has a long his­to­ry of intel­lec­tu­al and adap­tive impair­ments that have been doc­u­ment­ed since his child­hood, includ­ing IQ scores rang­ing from the low 50s to the low 70s. The American Psychological Association and American Bar Association filed briefs on November 7 sup­port­ing Moore’s claim and the urg­ing the Supreme Court to again reverse the Texas court. They were joined by a group of promi­nent con­ser­v­a­tives — includ­ing for­mer Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, Congressman Bob Barr, con­ser­v­a­tive strate­gist Richard Viguerie, and David A. Keene, the long­time chair of the National Conservative Union, among oth­ers — whose brief, also filed November 7, described the Texas court’s deci­sion as a threat to the integri­ty of the judi­cial process. They wrote: Quoting a Supreme Court deci­sion high­light­ing the errors made by the CCA in its pre­vi­ous review of this case, but pro­ceed­ing to make those same errors on remand, is inim­i­cal to the rule of law.”

Moore ini­tial­ly pre­sent­ed his claim that he is intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled and there­fore inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty under the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court rul­ing Atkins v. Virginia to a Harris County, Texas tri­al court. Following con­tem­po­rary med­ical diag­nos­tic cri­te­ria, the court agreed that Moore was intel­lec­tu­al dis­abled and ruled that his death sen­tence should be vacat­ed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, apply­ing an idio­syn­crat­ic stan­dard based on unsci­en­tif­ic stereo­types, includ­ing the behav­ior of a fic­tion­al char­ac­ter from the nov­el Of Mice and Men. After the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remand­ed for a new deci­sion informed by the med­ical community’s diag­nos­tic frame­work,” the Harris County District Attorney’s office con­ced­ed that Moore qual­i­fied as intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled. Nonetheless, in a rul­ing three dis­senters crit­i­cized as an out­lier,” a sharply divid­ed (5 – 3) Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in June 2018 again upheld Moore’s death sentence.

In a November 28 op-ed in The Washington Post, Starr, who served as United States Solicitor General under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 – 1993, urged the Supreme Court to save[] Bobby Moore from exe­cu­tion … again.” Starr wrote, The job of a judge is to fol­low the law … [and] care­ful­ly apply the prece­dent of the Supreme Court. … If the sys­tem were work­ing as it should, Moore’s case would have been a rou­tine mat­ter of the Texas court apply­ing the Supreme Court’s deci­sion and cur­rent med­ical stan­dards as direct­ed and pro­hibit­ing Moore’s exe­cu­tion.” Quoting then‑U.S. appeals court Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, Starr said: As a low­er court in a sys­tem of absolute ver­ti­cal stare deci­sis head­ed by one Supreme Court, it is essen­tial that we fol­low both the words and the music of Supreme Court decisions.”

Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver also asked the Supreme Court to block Moore’s exe­cu­tion. In a November 19 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Shriver crit­i­cized the Texas court’s rea­son­ing as absurd, wrong and harm­ful.” But most impor­tant,” Shriver wrote, the stan­dard the court applied was not how the med­ical com­mu­ni­ty diag­noses intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty…. Pervasive stereo­types about intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty are inac­cu­rate and harm­ful. In this Texas court case, they are a mat­ter of life or death. Let’s final­ly rec­og­nize the com­plex­i­ty of peo­ple with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty,” Shriver said. The world will be much rich­er for it.”

(Kenneth W. Star, The Supreme Court saved Bobby Moore from exe­cu­tion once. It should do it again., Washington Post, November 28, 2018; Timothy P. Shriver, The Supreme Court should block the exe­cu­tion of a Texas man with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty — again, Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2018.) See U.S. Supreme Court, Intellectual Disability, and Arbitrariness.

Citation Guide