Sonia Sotomayor Questions Attorney's Death Penalty Argument in Hamm v. Smith

Sotomayor Challenges Petitioner's Argument

• 🎯 Justice Sotomayor expressed skepticism, stating the attorney was "making something wholesale up" regarding the definition and proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases.
• 💡 She noted a lack of state laws or court precedents that define or prove intellectual disability in the manner presented by the petitioner's attorney.
• 🔍 Sotomayor pointed to a table of cases that appeared to follow the method used by the district court, suggesting a lack of significant lower court disagreement.

Precedent and Legal Standards

• ⚖️ The discussion centered on the precedent set by Hall and the burden of proof for offenders in establishing intellectual disability.
• ❓ Sotomayor pressed the attorney to name a single court case that supports the argument that the first prong of intellectual disability determination relies on a statistical measure.
• 📚 She highlighted that Bird v. State clearly places the burden on the offender to prove an IQ of 70 or below by a preponderance of the evidence.

Disagreement on Lower Court Rulings

• 📉 Sotomayor questioned the attorney's characterization of disagreement among lower courts, suggesting that many seem to follow a consistent procedure.
• 🗣️ She challenged the assertion that offenders have not been granted relief without a statistical method, asking for specific case examples.
• 🧐 The justice noted that some circuit courts (8th, 9th, 11th) look at the lowest score alone, but questioned if these rulings were correct or accurately represented.

IQ Scores and Standard Error

• 📊 The conversation touched upon the evaluation of multiple IQ scores and the complexity of determining intellectual disability.
• ⚠️ Sotomayor emphasized that Hall acknowledges IQ as a measurement with statistical properties, necessitating consideration of the standard error of measurement.
• 🔑 The core of Sotomayor's questioning was the demand for a specific state case that requires plaintiffs to prove intellectual disability with statistical mathematical certainty or a preponderance of the evidence using a statistical analysis.