Hamm v. Smith · ¶44

Despite the principal dissent's professed concern that lower courts lack sufficient guidance from this Court to analyze multiple IQ scores in general, it seems that the core of the dissent's dissatisfaction is rather with the District Court's specific conclusion in this case that Smith is intellectually disabled and thus cannot be executed. See post, at 324. Even on these case-specific grounds, the dissent is mistaken. I therefore write to explain why the District Court's holistic method of reviewing multiple IQ scores is consistent with this Court's precedents, the medical community's diagnostic framework, and Alabama state law. Furthermore, the District Court's factual finding that Smith has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, and its ultimate conclusion that Smith is intellectually disabled, is neither properly before the Court nor clearly erroneous.

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