Hamm v. Smith · ¶186
This case presented an opportunity for the Court to explain how courts should evaluate Atkins claims when the defendant has multiple IQ test scores. Nothing in our case law sanctioned the lower courts' analyses, and we should have used this case to bring clarity to our Atkins doctrine. By instead remaining silent, the Court exacerbates the confusion that plagues our jurisprudence in this area. If this Court continues to shy away from opportunities to provide workable doctrine, we should not be surprised if petitions asking us to overrule Atkins, Hall, and Moore arrive at our doorsteps soon. See, e. g., Brief for United States as Ami cus Curiae 26–32 (asking the Court to overrule Hall and Moore); Brief for Commonwealth of Kentucky as Amicus Curiae 2 (urging the Court to “engage in a more wholesale rethinking” of Atkins); ante, at 301 (Thomas, J., dissenting); cf. Brief for State of Idaho…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.