Hamm v. Smith · ¶173

Smith separately argues that the District Court's analysis merely tracked Alabama law, which does not bar consideration of adaptive-functioning evidence even if a defendant fails to produce a 70-or-lower test score. Brief for Respondent 45–46. But whether the District Court correctly granted habeas relief turns on whether Smith's death sentence violated the Constitution, not Alabama law.See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a). Regardless, Alabama law, like our Atkins doctrine, requires a defendant to prove that his IQ is 70 or below. See Ex parte Perkins, 851 So. 2d, at 456. Smith has thus far failed to do so under any valid method, and he cannot identify a single Alabama case in which a court granted relief after concluding that a defendant's IQ exceeded 70. See, e. g., Mulkey v. State, ––– So. 3d ––– (Ala. Crim. App. 2025) (applying a 70 IQ cutoff and denying relief to a defendant who scored 72).…

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