In a significant move, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a lower court decision that halted the execution of Alabama death row inmate Joseph Clifton Smith, who was previously found to be intellectually disabled. This ruling sends the case back to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, requiring clarification on whether Smith meets the criteria for intellectual disability established by previous Supreme Court precedent.
Smith was convicted of the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam, whom he allegedly killed in a brutal assault involving a hammer and saw. The crime, motivated by the theft of the victim’s boots, tools, and $140, led to Smith’s conviction and subsequent death sentence in Mobile County, Alabama.
The crux of the case centers on the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which prohibits the execution of individuals deemed intellectually disabled under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Alabama, like many states, uses an IQ threshold of 70 as part of its standard for determining intellectual disability, though later rulings by the Supreme Court have allowed for a more nuanced consideration of scores near this cutoff.
Smith’s intellectual capacity was evaluated through multiple IQ tests, with his lowest score recorded at 72. However, a federal judge noted that, accounting for the standard error, Smith’s score might fall as low as 69, potentially placing him within the range of intellectual disability. The judge’s assessment highlighted Smith’s lifelong deficits in social skills, independent living, and academics, leading to the 11th Circuit’s decision to set aside his death sentence in 2023.
Alabama contested this finding, arguing that the lower court excessively emphasized Smith’s lowest IQ score rather than considering the broader range of evidence. The Supreme Court agreed that the 11th Circuit’s ruling could be interpreted in multiple ways and thus requires further clarification.
The decision underscores ongoing complexities in interpreting the legal standards for intellectual disability in death penalty cases. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch voiced that they would have preferred a full hearing on Alabama’s appeal, reflecting the ideological divides surrounding death penalty jurisprudence.
The case now returns to the 11th Circuit for further examination, with potential implications for future cases involving intellectual disability and the death penalty. The Supreme Court’s involvement highlights the careful balancing act required to navigate constitutional protections while respecting states’ criminal justice processes.
Read more: