Hamm v. Smith · ¶52

Here, the District Court did not discount the lower or higher end of the standard-error range for Smith's scores because of his adaptive defcits; rather, it accepted the full ranges as refective of what Smith's IQ was likely to be. See Pet. App. 70a (“Smith did not consistently score so high that the Court is confdent that . . . the standard error for the tests can be disregarded”); id., at 68a (“It remains clear that the Court should consider the standard error inherent in IQ tests”). It considered all of Smith's scores and their respective standard errors, some of which fell into the clinically established range for intellectual-functioning defcits, and concluded that “additional evidence must be considered, including testimony on [Smith's] adaptive defcits[,] to determine whether Smith is intellectually disabled.” Id., at 74a. That is the same analysis that Hall endorsed and that…

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