Hamm v. Smith · ¶63

Here, neither Alabama nor the United States seriously contends that the District Court's finding was clearly erroneous. For good reason: It was not. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and carefully weighed the evidence, including the raw IQ scores, each score's standard error range, expert testimony about interpreting those scores, and much more. The court ultimately found that Smith has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and is intellectually disabled. On my review of the record, this determination was correct, or, at the very least, plausible. See APA Brief 22 (“The IQ test scores in this case fall comfortably within the range within which a clinician could reasonably conclude . . . that Smith satisfied” the intellectual-functioning prong of Alabama's definition). In the principal dissent's view, that determination was incorrect. Either way, this Court is…

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