Hamm v. Smith · ¶178
Justice Sotomayor nevertheless emphasizes that “Alabama never argued that the [District Court] must . . . us[e] any particular method (or set of methods) to assess whether an Atkins claimant has proven significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.” Ante, at 287. But it was not Ala- bama's burden to explain why Smith's IQ scores disqualified him from Atkins relief. Rather, Smith has the burden of proving that his scores establish an IQ of 70 or less using some defensible method. See Hawk v. Olson, 326 U. S. 271, 279 (1945) (“Petitioner carries the burden in a collateral [habeas] attack”). Alabama has consistently maintained that Smith fails to satisfy this burden given his scores. See Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief in Smith v. Dunn, No. 05–cv–00474 (SD Ala.), ECF Doc. 129, pp. 36–46. The District Court held otherwise only by engaging in unsound analysis, and Alabama has objected to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.