Entries tagged with “Hall v. Florida

Policy Issues

Arbitrariness

,

Intellectual Disability

,

Sentencing Alternatives

,

Lethal Injection

,

Jun 13, 2020

Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of June 82020

NEWS (6/​11/​20) — Florida: The Florida Supreme Court applied new cas­es that retroac­tive­ly changed the law regard­ing claims of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty and the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of death sen­tences imposed after non-unan­i­mous jury votes for death to uphold the death sen­tences imposed on Alphonso Cave and Gary Lawrence.

Policy Issues

Arbitrariness

,

Intellectual Disability

,

United States Supreme Court

,

May 27, 2020

Florida Supreme Court Limits Enforcement of Supreme Court Decision Barring Execution of Intellectually Disabled Prisoners

For the third time in 2020, the Florida Supreme Court has reduced the con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions afford­ed to death-row pris­on­ers. In a May 21 deci­sion in Phillips v. State, the court over­turned its own case prece­dent and lim­it­ed enforce­ment of a U.S. Supreme Court case that bars exe­cu­tion of intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled prisoners.

Policy Issues

Intellectual Disability

,

Oct 21, 2016

Florida Supreme Court Rules Intellectual Disability Decision Applies Retroactively

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that death-row pris­on­ers who had unsuc­cess­ful­ly argued that they are inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty because of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty must be pro­vid­ed a sec­ond chance to prove their claims. On October 20, the Court decid­ed in Walls v. State that Florida must retroac­tive­ly apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 deci­sion in Hall v. Florida, which declared Florida’s pro­ce­dures for deter­min­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty to be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Prisoners whose intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claims had been denied under the stan­dard reject­ed in Hall will now be giv­en new…

Policy Issues

Intellectual Disability

,

Race

,

Feb 16, 2018

Is Racially Biased Testimony Wrongly Subjecting Intellectually Disabled Defendants to the Death Penalty?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 deci­sion in Atkins v. Virginia cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly bars states from exe­cut­ing any per­son who has Intellectual Disability. (Daryl Atkins is pic­tured.) However, as report­ed in recent sto­ries in Pacific Standard Magazine and the news­pa­per, The Atlanta Black Star, some states have attempt­ed to cir­cum­vent the Atkins rul­ing by using social stereo­types and race as grounds to argue that defen­dants of col­or are not intel­lec­tu­al­ly disabled.

Policy Issues

Intellectual Disability

,

United States Supreme Court

,

May 27, 2014

Supreme Court Strikes Down Florida’s Strict IQ Cutoff for Death Penalty

On May 27, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hall v. Florida that Florida’s strict IQ cut­off for deter­min­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty in cap­i­tal cas­es is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The Court con­clud­ed, Florida’s law con­tra­venes our Nation’s com­mit­ment to dig­ni­ty and its duty to teach human decen­cy as the mark of a civ­i­lized world.”

Policy Issues

Arbitrariness

,

Intellectual Disability

,

United States Supreme Court

,

Feb 24, 2014

Supreme Court to Examine Florida’s Narrow Standard for Mental Retardation

On March 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argu­ments in Hall v. Florida, a case address­ing the strict stan­dard for intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty that Florida uses to deter­mine if inmates are exempt from exe­cu­tion. Under the Court’s 2002 deci­sion in Atkins v. Virginia, indi­vid­u­als with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties (men­tal retar­da­tion) are con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly barred from receiv­ing the death penal­ty. The deci­sion le[ft] to the State[s] the task of devel­op­ing appro­pri­ate ways to enforce the con­sti­tu­tion­al restric­tion,” result­ing in var­i­ous stan­dards for deter­min­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties across the states. Unlike almost all other…