Hamm v. Smith · ¶86
Unable to persuade the Alabama courts that he was mentally retarded, Smith sought habeas relief in federal court, arguing that the Alabama courts unreasonably applied At kins. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). The District Court initially denied habeas relief for the straightforward reason that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not act unreasonably when it refused to “reduc[e]” Smith's lowest “IQ score of 72 such that [it] would . . . fall within the mental retardation range.” Smith v. Thomas, No. 05–cv–0474 (SD Ala., Sept. 30, 2013), ECF Doc. 59, pp. 61–62. Smith's own expert, the court explained, testified that his scores were at best close “ `to those individuals who would be considered mentally retarded' ”— a conclusion that “is incompatible with a determination that Smith is mentally retarded himself.” Id., at 60 (emphasis deleted). And, the court observed, “every IQ test administered to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.