Hamm v. Smith · ¶161

If psychology, statistics, and our case law do not suffce to underscore the faws of the Eleventh Circuit's one-low-score approach, common sense seals the deal. The Eleventh Cir- cuit's approach would produce absurd results. Imagine that a defendant had taken an IQ test every year from first grade through high-school graduation. Suppose that five of these scores were 100, five were in the 90s, one was in the 80s, and one was 71 on a test with a standard error of 3. On this hypothetical record, there would be no practical likelihood that the defendant's IQ is 70 or below. Rather, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the 71 score is an outlier, and that its confidence interval does not capture the defendant's “true” IQ. But under the Eleventh Circuit's one-lowscore rule, a court could not deny Atkins relief on these scores unless it separately found inadequate the defendant's…

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