Hamm v. Smith · ¶169

Indeed, the evidence on which lower courts relied to defate their estimate of Smith's IQ was even less relevant than the evidence that the Texas court considered in Moore. In Moore, the Texas court relied on evidence that plausibly caused a test to underestimate the defendant's IQ, such as his possible depression on test day and his strong incentive to underperform. Ex parte Moore, 470 S. W. 3d, at 517–519. Here, in contrast, the lower courts discounted Smith's IQ using facts completely unrelated to his testing, such as his failure to maintain a bank account and his difficulties purchasing groceries. App. to Pet. for Cert. 87a. If Moore prohibits courts from using test-day details to infate an IQ estimate, then surely it prohibits courts from using sundry facts about a defendant's life before prison to defate an estimate.Yet this is precisely the evidence on which the courts below…

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