NEWS (3/​26/​20): Kentucky — The Kentucky Supreme Court has issued deci­sions in two cas­es pre­sent­ing sig­nif­i­cant issues con­cern­ing the applic­a­bil­i­ty of the death penal­ty against defen­dants with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty or under the age of 21.

In White v. Commonwealth, the court ruled that Larry White — who may be inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty because of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty — may not waive a pend­ing appeal claim of intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abil­i­ty that is sup­port­ed by evi­dence cre­at­ing rea­son­able doubt as to his intel­lec­tu­al capa­bil­i­ties.” White’s intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claim had been denied under a stan­dard for deter­min­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty that was lat­er over­turned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky court’s rul­ing in the case and returned it to the state courts for recon­sid­er­a­tion based upon pre­vail­ing clin­i­cal def­i­n­i­tions of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. In the inter­im, White filed a motion on his own to waive his intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claim and move on to the state post-con­vic­tion process. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied his attempt­ed waiv­er and direct­ed the tri­al court to con­duct an evi­den­tiary hear­ing to deter­mine if he is intellectually disabled.

In the con­sol­i­dat­ed cas­es of Commonwealth v. Bredhold and Commonwealth v. Diaz and Smith, the court declined to address the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of impos­ing the death penal­ty upon a defen­dant who was younger than age 21 at the time of the offense. The court held that defen­dants Travis Bredhold, Efrain Diaz, Jr, and Travis Smith lacked stand­ing to chal­lenge whether they could be cap­i­tal­ly tried for offens­es com­mit­ted before age 21 because they had not yet been sen­tenced to death. The Court wrote: While death penal­ty tri­als are unques­tion­ably more involved than typ­i­cal felony tri­als, … pre­sent­ing issues and pro­ce­dures unique to the grav­i­ty of the penal­ty sought, the focus of Eighth Amendment analy­sis is not the tri­al, but rather the actu­al penal­ty imposed.” In the absence of a death sen­tence, it said, those issues would not be ripe to be decid­ed. The appeals court returned the cas­es to the Fayette County Circuit Court to per­mit the cap­i­tal tri­als to go forward.