Ketanji Brown Jackson Questions Shifting Death Penalty Standards in Hamm v. Smith

Questioning the Standard for Death Penalty

• ⚖️ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Petitioner attorney Robert M. Overing regarding the standards for IQ in issuing the death penalty during oral arguments for Hamm v. Smith.
• 🎯 Jackson suggested that the attorney was attempting to change the standard by focusing solely on IQ scores, rather than considering other evidence.

IQ Scores vs. Adaptive Functioning

• 🧠 The case law consistently states that the first prong relates to a showing of significant sub-general intellectual functioning, not solely an IQ score below 70.
• 💡 While an IQ score is one way to demonstrate this, evidence related to adaptive functioning has also been allowed and considered.
• 📊 Jackson argued that shifting the focus entirely to the IQ test is not supported by existing case law.

Evolving Definitions and Expert Opinions

• 📈 The definition of intellectual functioning has evolved, with different editions of the DSM suggesting varying IQ thresholds (e.g., 70, 65, or 75).
• 🗣️ Experts from the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities state that there can be no single mandatory empirical method for determining intellectual disability, emphasizing the use of clinical judgment and a complete analysis.
• 🧩 They argue that reducing the determination to a single score is misguided, as multiple factors should be considered.

State Discretion and Primary Criterion

• 🔑 The attorney argued that if there's no single mandatory method, it is up to states and their legislatures to decide the criteria.
• 📊 IQ remains the best single representation of intellectual functioning, and an alternative approach is unworkable for courts to compare objective IQ evidence with subjective evidence of adaptive functioning.