mental retardation

Bobby v. Bies

Issues

Whether the Sixth Circuit's definition of "acquittal" conflicts with the Supreme Court's prior decisions defining "acquittal" under AEDPA, whether relitigation to determine if a death-sentenced inmate is mentally retarded violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, and whether the Sixth Circuit violated the AEDPA when it applied the Double Jeopardy Clause's collateral estoppel argument to prevent relitigation, even if that issue might not have been necessary to the court's decision in that case.

 

Respondent Michael Bies was convicted of kidnapping, murder and attempted rape of a ten-year-old boy in 1992. Despite expert testimony indicating that he was functionally mentally retarded, a jury recommended and judge delivered a death sentence. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that Bies was mentally retarded, but held that the aggravating circumstances of the crime outweighed the mitigating factor of his mental retardation. However, in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court held that execution of mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Bies argues that in light of this, his death sentence should be commuted since the Ohio Supreme Court already indicated that he was mentally retarded, and re-litigating the issue would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The State of Ohio argues that since the issue of Bies' mental retardation was not necessary for the State's decision prior to Atkins v. Virginia, contesting the issue of his mental state is not blocked by collateral estoppel, or in violation of the Double Jeopardy clause. This case is important because it will help to determine whether states can have the opportunity to relitigate the issue of whether a convicted capital defendant is mentally retarded before his sentence is commuted in light of Atkins.

 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Did the Sixth Circuit violate the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") when, in overruling an Ohio post-conviction court on double jeopardy grounds, it crafted a new definition of "acquittal" that conflicts with this Court's decisions?

2. Do the Double Jeopardy Clause's protections apply to a state post-conviction hearing on the question of a death-sentenced inmate's mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), that does not expose the inmate to the risk of any additional criminal punishment?

3. Did the Sixth Circuit violate AEDPA when it applied the Double Jeopardy Clause's collateral estoppel component to enjoin an Ohio post-conviction court from deciding the issue of a death-sentenced inmate's mental retardation under Atkins even though the Ohio Supreme Court did not actually and necessarily decide the issue on direct review?

In 1992, Respondent Michael Bies was convicted of the kidnapping, murder, and attempted rape of a ten-year-old boy. See Bies v. Bagley, 519 F.3d 324, 327 (2008). Bies admitted to participating in the murder with the aid of an accomplice. See State v. Bies, 74 Ohio St.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Professor John H. Blume, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School and Director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project. He is serving as Counsel of Record for Respondent Michael Bies and lent insight on the most important issues that may shape the Supreme Court's decision in this case.

Submit for publication
0

Brumfield v. Cain

Issues

Are indigent prisoners entitled to government funds to present new claims of mental incompetency in post-conviction proceedings in state court?

The Supreme Court will determine the extent to which indigent prisoners sitting on death row are entitled to government resources in order to present new claims of mental incompetency in post-conviction proceedings. Brumfield argues that the Louisiana state court violated federal law by interfering with his due process rights. In contrast, Cain argues that the state court did not violate any of Brumfield’s clearly established rights under federal law. This case raises questions about the extent to which federal courts may rely on states’ pre-Atkins proceedings to uphold death sentences imposed on prisoners now offering evidence that they were mentally incompetent. Determining this question implicates the extent to which a state’s quality or reliability of review should factor into the federal courts’ deference to the previous state court determination. This case will have implications for indigent prisoners sentenced to death prior to the Court’s decision in Atkins. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Has a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), based its decision on an unreasonable determination of facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)?
  2. Has a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,” contrary to Atkins and Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), and his constitutional right to be provided with “basic tools” for an adequate defense, contrary to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 69 (1985)?

This case arises from Kevan Brumfield’s 1993 conviction for the murder of a Baton Rouge police officer and an attempted armed robbery. See Brumfield v. Cain, 854 F. Supp. 2d 366, 371 (M.D. La. 2012). On January 5, 1993, Brumfield and an associate went to a self-described psychic counselor for a reading. See State of Louisiana ex rel. Cain v. Brumfield, 737 So. 2d 660, 662 (La.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professors Keir Weyble, Michael Dorf, and John Blume for their help.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hall v. Florida

Issues

Does Florida’s use of a cutoff IQ to establish mental retardation violate Atkins v. Virginia’s ruling that executing mentally retarded criminals violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual” punishment?

Court below

The state of Florida sentenced Freddie Lee Hall to death on September 9, 1982 for murdering Karol Hurst. Hall challenged his sentence multiple times, and the Florida state courts vacated and reinstated the sentence each time. During one resentencing trial, the court found Hall to be mentally retarded. At an evidentiary hearing to determine his mental competence, the court found that Hall’s IQ exceeded the minimum cut-off for mental retardation in Florida. Hall’s most recent challenge therefore involves the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that executing mentally retarded criminals violates their Eighth Amendment right against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Hall argues that Florida’s measure of mental retardation, which uses an IQ score cutoff, violates Atkins, and that Atkins prohibits Florida from executing him. Florida argues that the state’s definition of mental retardation complies with Atkins. In turn, the state asserts that under its definition of mental retardation, Hall can be executed. This case could determine whether Florida can execute Hall and, more broadly, states’ ability to establish standards for mental retardation based on IQ testing.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Florida scheme for identifying mentally retarded defendants in capital cases violates Atkins v. Virginia.

top

Facts

On September 9, 1982, the governor of Florida signed Freddie Lee Hall's death warrant for the murder of Karol Hurst, after Hall was tried and convicted in Putnam County and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction. See Hall v. State,  109 So. 3d 704, 705–706 (Fla. 2012). After his appeals to the Florida state courts failed, Hall filed an appeal in federal court. See id.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to mental retardation