Hamm v. Smith · ¶21

On remand, the Eleventh Circuit answered that it had used a “ `holistic approach.' ” Smith v. Commissioner, Ala. Dept. of Corrections, No. 21–14519 (Nov. 14, 2024) (per cu riam), Pet. App. 2a. It also “unambiguously reject[ed] any suggestion that a court may ever conclude that a capital defendant suffers from significantly subaverage intellectual functioning based solely on the fact that the lower end of the standard-error range for his lowest of multiple IQ scores is 69.” Ibid. It then affirmed the District Court's decision, explaining that the District Court had properly considered “Smith's IQ test results, taken together and in context of expert testimony,” and that its factual findings were not clearly erroneous. Id., at 5a.

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