Atkins v. Virginia & The 8th Amendment
In 2002, the US Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304, holding that the imposition of the death penalty against the mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In the wake of Atkins, many states were forced to rework their death penalty statutes. Florida created a provision whereby if a capital defendant had an IQ of less than 70, the death penalty could not be imposed. In Hall v. Florida (2014) 572 U.S.___, Freddie Lee Hall was convicted of a truly heinous double murder before Atkins was decided. He was resentenced after Atkins pursuant to Florida’s post Atkins death penalty statutes. Evidence was introduced that he was severely mentally impaired and that his level of understanding was that which was “typically seen with toddlers.” His IQ was tested at 71. He was sentenced to die. In considering the issue, the Supreme court found that a bright-line in determining mental impairment was unconstitutional. Not surprising, Scalia and Thomas dissented.
The majority found that pure reliance on IQ was too narrow, not in keeping with current medical consensus, and to prevent a capitol defendant from presenting a range of evidence to establish disability was incompatible with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that “Florida’s law contravenes our Nation’s commitment to dignity and its duty to teach human decency as the mark of a civilized world.” To that end, the opinion is aspirational: the Court reiterated that “The Eighth Amendment is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by humane justice.” Further: “The Eighth Amendment’s protection of dignity reflects the Nation we have been, the Nation we are, and the Nation we aspire to be.”
This is the import of the Hall decision. We, as citizens and advocates, have the power and responsibility to inform the public opinion, to evolve our constitution and, in doing so, our culture. This intellectual framework is not just limited to the death penalty. Rather, it is the fact that arguments can be made on important issues, and can inform us as a people That the constitution creates a space to have the argument is what makes us great. Each of us should endeavor to keep the argument for justice going, for whatever issue we believe is important, and push public opinion forward.
On a lighter note, Harris v. Superior Court (2014) DJ DAR 5243, presents some of the strangest facts I have ever seen. In this case, the defendant was arrested and charged with various drug offenses and enhancements. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the attorney he hired was facing felony auto theft charges filed by the same DA. Even stranger, both the defendant and his attorney had been arrested by the same sheriff’s deputy. The defendant’s attorney never told him any of this and conducted defendant’s preliminary hearing. In setting the information aside, The Second District Court of Appeal found the conflict of interest to be evident on the face of the record: the attorney may have been inclined to hold back to keep from angering the DA in an effort to garner a better relationship for his own case, and that he may not have crossed the deputy with unfettered zeal to keep from antagonizing a witness against him. While this set of facts is bizarre in the extreme, it does raise an important point: be ever vigilant for conflicts, as they can arise from the most unexpected circumstances! Also, don’t steal cars.