Daryl Atkins, the defen­dant in the 2002 Supreme Court case (Atkins v. Virginia) that banned the exe­cu­tion of the men­tal­ly retard­ed, had his death sen­tence reduced to life with­out parole after a Virginia judge heard that evi­dence had been with­held from his tri­al attor­neys. Sentenced to death for the 1996 rob­bery and mur­der of Eric Nesbitt, Atkins received much atten­tion because of his men­tal lim­i­ta­tions and the ques­tion of whether it was con­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute those with men­tal retar­da­tion. Atkins, how­ev­er, was not spared because of his men­tal retar­da­tion. Instead, Atkins received his reprieve because an attor­ney for the co-defen­dant in the case revealed that pros­e­cu­tors had not dis­closed the whole sto­ry of his clien­t’s involve­ment in the crime.

Atkins and his code­fen­dant in the mur­der, William Jones, both admit­ted to tak­ing part in the crime, but each said the oth­er did the actu­al shoot­ing. Jones’ tes­ti­mo­ny against Atkins was key in Atkins’ con­vic­tion. At a hear­ing on Atkins’ men­tal retar­da­tion, it was revealed that pros­e­cu­tors coaxed and coached Jones when he was mak­ing his state­ment against Atkins, and that there was a 16-minute gap in the taped state­ment where Jones’ state­ment did not align with the pros­e­cu­tor’s the­o­ry of the case. Judge Prentis Smiley, Jr., who was pre­sid­ing over the hear­ing, stat­ed, ​“The court finds that had he [Atkins’s attor­ney] been giv­en the evi­dence, the out­come might have been dif­fer­ent.” The judge then vacat­ed Atkins’ death sen­tence because of the impro­pri­eties at the orig­i­nal tri­al.

Joseph Migliozzi, Atkins’ attor­ney, said, ​“We’re relieved. We believe the judge took this very seri­ous­ly, and we feel that he arrived at the fair and appro­pri­ate deci­sion.”
(“Death Sentence Commuted In Va. Case,” by Donna St. George, Washington Post, January 18, 2008). See Mental Retardation, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Supreme Court.

Citation Guide