• Save
Blume 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Blume 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium presentation

on

  • 1,870 views

This is John H. Blume's presentation made as part of an Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium at the 2010 AAIDD conference in Providence RI. A brief summary can be found at the following link.

This is John H. Blume's presentation made as part of an Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium at the 2010 AAIDD conference in Providence RI. A brief summary can be found at the following link.

http://tinyurl.com/2ehygh3

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,870
Views on SlideShare
1,867
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 3

http://www.google.com 2
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Blume 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 1. An Empirical Look at Atkins v. Virginia and its Application in Capital Cases
    John H. Blume
    AAIDD Annual Meeting
    Providence, RI
    June
  • 2. Empirical Survey of Post-Atkins Cases
    Floodgates and Frivolous Litigation?
    Prong by Prong: More Evidence of State Deviations from the Clinical Definitions
    Race Effects
    Current Research
  • 3. I. Floodgates and Frivolous Litigation?
  • 4. Justice Scalia in Atkins
    “This newest invention promises to be more effective than any of the others in turning the process of capital trial into a game. One need only read the definitions of mental retardation to realize that the symptoms of this condition can readily be feigned.
    And whereas the capital defendant who feigns insanity risks commitment to a mental institution until he can be cured (and then tried and executed), the capital defendant who feigns mental retardation risks nothing at all.”
    Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 353 (2002) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  • 5. “Time will tell . . . .”
    Prisoners on death row nationwide:
    approximately 3,300
    Capital defendants or death row prisoners filing Atkins claims:
    approximately 7%
  • 6. Atkins Claims vs. Death Row Population
  • 7. High Success Rates
    Winning Atkins claims:
    approximately 40% of filed Atkins claims have won
    Proportion of death row population found to have MR:
    approximately 3%
    actual number may be higher
  • 8. WIDE STATE VARIATION
    There is wide state variation among states:
    North Carolina: 17 of 21 cases have been successful
    Alabama: 4 of 28 cases have been successful
    Based on our research, the success rate appears to be linked to
    The availability of funding
    The state definition of MR
  • 9. II. Prong by Prong: The Impact of Divergent Applications of the Clinical Definitions
  • 10. Do States “Generally Conform”?
    • State deviations from clinical definitions of MR:
    • 11. Prong 1 – Intellectual functioning
    • 12. Strict IQ cutoff (“70 or below”)
    • 13. Failure to account for standard error of measurement or practice effects
    • 14. Disregarding the Flynn effect
    • 15. Prong 2 – Adaptive functioning
    • 16. Focusing on adaptive strengths rather than weaknesses
    • 17. Giving too much weight to prison behavior and crime “sophisticaton”
    • 18. Stereotyping
    • 19. Prong 3 – Onset
    • 20. Demanding standardized test result as proof of onset
  • Losses by Prong
  • 21. Percent Losses by Prong
  • 22. Prong 1: Winning and Losing IQ
    Are claimants winning with IQ scores over 70?
    Approximately 15% had an average IQ above 70
    • Fortunate not to be in “cutoff” state
    Approximately 60% did not have any IQ scores over 70
    • Would qualify in every jurisdiction
    Are claimants losing with IQ scores below 70?
    In 18% of losing cases (all Prong 1 only), claimant’s average IQ score was below 70, but included a score over 70
  • 23. Prong 2: Skill Areas
  • 24. Prong 2: Behavior in Prison
  • 25. WHY CASES LOSE
    • Reasons court have offered for finding that the defendant did not have deficits in adaptive functioning.
    • 26. D could “read, write and perform some rudimentary math”
    • 27. D has “adapted to the criminal life”
    • 28. The crime was “too sophisticated” for a mentally retarded person
    • 29. D attempted to “cover up” the crime
    • 30. D lied to the police
    • 31. D gave a detailed confession
    • 32. D married 3 times
    • 33. D maintained construction jobs
    • 34. D had a driver’s license
    • 35. D was never in special education classes
    • 36. D could operate a microwave
    • 37. D read children’s books and the Bible
    • 38. D took notes during trial
    • 39. D’s trial testimony was coherent
    • 40. D communicated with counsel
  • MATAMOROS v. THALER
    • The Court found that Matamoros had significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.
    • 41. But, no deficits in adaptive functioning because:
    • 42. “Matamoros’ juvenile offenses, lying to his mother about where he got stolen cares, manipulative behavior at TYC, commission of the capital murder and behavior after the offense, and his attempt to blame someone else for the capital murder demonstrated rational and appropriate conduct.”
  • LIZCANO v. STATE (TEXAS)
    Defendant prevailed on prong 1.
    He lost on prong 2 despite overwhelming evidence of deficits in adaptive functioning because:
    He was a “hard and reliable worker”
    He had romantic relationships with two women
    He sent significant amounts of money to his family in Mexico.
  • 43. III. Race Effects
  • 44. Percent of Atkins Claims by Race
  • 45. AVERAGE IQ SCORES OF ATKINS’ CLAIMANTS
    African American Inmates – 71
    Caucasian Inmates – 73
    Hispanic Inmates - 69
  • 46. IV. CURRENT RESEARCH
    Jury v. Judge –
    There have been 24 jury determinations of whether a capital defendant is a person with mental retardation (that we are aware of) since Atkins was decided.
    In 1 case the jury found for the defendant.
    Juror Interviews
    Factual Innocence