Two Scheduled Executions of People with Intellectual Disability in Florida Raise Serious Concerns

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia established that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing people with intellectual disability. The Court later clarified that rigid IQ cutoffs were not permissible and also required states to consider meaningful evidence of intellectual disability, including scientifically valid expert testimony and adaptive functioning deficits. Despite this unequivocal constitutional protection, two death-sentenced prisoners — David Pittman and Victor Jones—face execution this month in Florida. Attorneys for both men argue they are people with intellectual disabilities that should be exempt from execution and protected under Atkins.

David Pittman is scheduled to be executed September 17, 2025, despite his attorneys’ contention that he is a person with intellectual disability. He was sentenced to death in 1991 for the murders of three people in Mulberry, Florida, and has spent more than half his life on death row. According to his counsel, Mr. Pittman has trouble reading basic words, often requires repeated explanations, and has consistently scored a low IQ. Despite this evidence, courts have refused to hear Mr. Pittman’s claim. Julissa Fontan, attorney for Mr. Pittman, told a judge in August 2025 that he has a right to access the court for review of his claim, noting “[i]f we do not do this, we are running the risk of actually executing an intellectually disabled man here in the state of Florida.”

“[W]e are running the risk of actually executing an intellectually disabled man here in the state of Florida.”

Julissa Fontan, attorney for David Pittman

During Mr. Pittman’s trial, mitigation evidence was presented but trial counsel failed to investigate or present any expert evidence of intellectual disability — in part because people with intellectual disability were not legally protected from execution at that time. Frances Pittman, Mr. Pittman’s mother, testified during his trial that he had not learned to talk until age four, he struggled in school and could not control his behavior, and was even sent home from school on the first day of first grade because he was disrupting class. Mr. Pittman earned failing grades throughout grade school and made it only to eighth grade. His mother testified, “to put it simply, he was a child most women would not want to have to raise…He was hyper. He just kept your nerves on tight all the time.” Court records indicate that Mrs. Pittman testified to the abuse her son experienced at her own hands, telling the court she would beat him “every day, every other day.” Expert testimony also revealed that Mr. Pittman was sexually abused as a child by multiple adult figures in his life, later turning to drugs as a teenager. A neuropsychologist testified that the Pittmans had a family history of mental illness, and that Mr. Pittman exhibited signs of brain damage. Presented with this evidence, the jury was divided, ultimately recommending a death sentence for Mr. Pittman by a 9 – 3 vote. In no other state in the U.S. would Mr. Pittman have been eligible to be sentenced to death based on this jury recommendation.

Since his 1991 trial, the understanding of and science surrounding intellectual disability has changed drastically. IQ testing performed when Mr. Pittman was a child and while he was in prison placed his IQ in the low 70s, well within the threshold most experts consider indicative of intellectual disability. His attorneys have also described him as “functionally illiterate.” State attorneys contest that Mr. Pittman does not have intellectual disability, citing an IQ test score of 95 around the time of trial. They have acknowledged that this one test score was an outlier among many other scores, but maintain he is too late in making this claim and is procedurally barred from accessing judicial review.

In Atkins, the Court explained that people with intellectual impairments are more vulnerable and “less morally culpable” than others, and therefore that executing individuals with intellectual disability violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Despite the high court’s ruling, many individuals asserting claims of intellectual disability in Florida were not granted relief because of a strict statutory rule requiring individuals to prove an IQ score lower than 70 — if it was not, the individual was not eligible for relief. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court, clarifying its ruling in Atkins, found Florida’s intellectual disability statute unconstitutional in Hall v. Florida because of its IQ threshold requirement for determining intellectual disability. Two years later, in Walls v. State (2016), the Florida Supreme Court found that Hall should be applied retroactively, meaning that people who were already sentenced to death but who had claims of intellectual disability could seek a new hearing.

At that point, attorneys for Mr. Pittman sought relief in court. However, before he could be granted a hearing to present evidence of his intellectual disability, the members of the Florida Supreme Court changed, and the new justices reversed the Walls decision. In 2020, in Phillips v. State, that court found that Hall should not have any retroactive effect. The Phillips decision established that defendants whose intellectual disabilities claims were previously denied under Florida’s old standards (which the U.S. Supreme Court found invalid in Hall) could not seek new hearings. This means that Mr. Pittman has been denied relief, and the constitutional protections his lawyers argue he deserves, not because the courts have determined his intellectual disability claims lack merit, but because of procedural limitations created by the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law.

Counsel for Mr. Pittman, upon learning that Governor Ron DeSantis had set his execution date, requested that the Florida Supreme Court allow for a hearing on his intellectual disability claim. The state’s highest court denied the request, and Mr. Pittman’s final petition remains pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Much like Mr. Pittman, Victor Jones, who was sentenced to death in 1993 for the 1990 murders of his two employers, has been denied relief in lower courts regarding his intellectual disability claim and is scheduled to be executed on September 30, 2025. At trial, the court found three aggravating factors and rejected every mitigating factor presented by defense counsel. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Atkins, Mr. Jones was able to secure an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate he met the standards outlined in that case. The State argued that because Mr. Jones’ IQ was tested and found to score above the hardline threshold of 70, he did not qualify for relief, and the circuit court agreed. After the state’s ruling in Hall, Mr. Jones again petitioned the courts for relief, but they summarily denied his claims based on prior testimony from the Atkins hearing, despite its reliance on outdated medical science.

During post-conviction proceedings, Mr. Jones’ sister and cousin described in detail the pain and abuse they all suffered at the hands of Laura Long, an aunt who raised them.” Both Mr. Jones’ sister and cousin described beatings in which Mr. Jones was made to first undress, noting that Ms. Long would call him “slow” and “stupid,” and beat him for getting bad grades. They also testified that Ms. Long’s son, who was ten years older than Mr. Jones, would beat them as well. This information was never presented to a jury.

His trial jury also never learned that as a young teenager, Mr. Jones was confined to Okeechobee School for Boys on four separate occasions between 1975 and 1978. While at Okeechobee, Mr. Jones suffered neglect, physical and sexual abuse by state employees, and witnessed brutality against his peers. Mr. Jones was beaten several times with thick leather straps, witnessed the gang-rape of his peers, and to avoid sexual violence, he had to fight off other boys, which landed him in solitary confinement. As a result of the abuse he witnessed and experienced, Mr. Jones developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), suicidal ideations, and a drug dependency. Though Mr. Jones told others, including authority figures and adults about Okeechobee, no one believed him — including his prosecuting attorney. Throughout his trial and appellate proceedings, the state of Florida has consistently argued that evidence of Mr. Jones’ abuse and the mental health effects of that abuse was not credible or believable. Without hearing the evidence of Okeechobee and his childhood abuse, his jury returned two verdicts for death. Mr. Jones’ current counsel contends that had the trial jury heard this evidence it would not have sentenced him to death.

Gov. DeSantis signed Mr. Jones’ execution warrant less than eight months after signing a bill that sets aside $20 million to compensate individuals who were sent to Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys and Okeechobee between 1940 and 1975 who suffered from mental, physical, or sexual abuse at the hands of state-employed officials. By signing this legislation, Gov. DeSantis acknowledged the wrongdoing of the state and traumatic effects of both Dozier and Okeechobee. An investigation by The Marshall Project found that at least 34 former residents of Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys were eventually sentenced to death in Florida. One of these individuals, Michael Bell, was executed in May 2025, despite federal courts never hearing his claims.

In January 2025, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office formally recognized in a letter to Mr. Jones that he is a member of the class of boys who were abused at Okeechobee. The letter states in part, “Please know that we are sorry to hear about the circumstances that prompted you to apply for compensation,” which was eventually sent to his account in prison. Mr. Jones’ counsel argues that the letter from AG Moody’s office should preclude the state from continuing to promote the theory that his claims of abuse are not credible. Noting the limited nature of the aggravating factors found at trial, attorneys for Mr. Jones argue his case requires relief because a reasonable probability exists that in conjunction with new evidence of his mental health issues and low IQ, the letter from January 2025, would lead a jury to sentence him to life imprisonment. Mr. Jones’ final warrant-related appeals remain pending in the Florida Supreme Court.

Explore by State