Hamm v. Smith · ¶151

Consider first the Eleventh Circuit's 2023 decision, which affirmed that Smith was entitled to Atkins relief. The Eleventh Circuit's analysis started off on the right foot. It explained that Smith “ha[d] the burden of proving” that he possessed “significant subaverage intellectual functioning.” Smith v. Commissioner, 67 F. 4th 1335, 1345 (2023) (per cu riam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, the court correctly recognized that “[w]hether Smith has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning turns on whether he has an IQ equal to or less than 70.” Ibid. Thus, in upholding the lower court's decision to grant Smith Atkins relief, the Eleventh Circuit necessarily concluded that his “true” IQ was 70 or lower.

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