Hamm v. Smith · ¶113

The common law therefore provides no support for Atkins claims, as this case demonstrates. No one contends that Smith is a common-law idiot. He reads at an 11th-grade level. His IQ is above 70—above the threshold for mental retardation and about triple what is typical of idiots. And, even setting aside IQ entirely, there is no doubt that Smith is able “to distinguish between good and evil,” Highmore 195, and that he is able to “understand . . . what is forbidden by law,” 1 Hale 34. His own expert “found that . . . Smith knew right from wrong.” ECF Doc. 135, p. 3.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.