Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
The Appropriate Standard of Proof for Determining Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases: How High Is Too High?
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Saviello, Timothy |
| Copyright Year | 2014 |
| Abstract | This paper takes a comprehensive look at how intellectual disability is diagnosed and proven in court, and applies the reasoning in the recent Supreme Court decision in Hall v. Florida to the determination of the appropriate standard of proof when capital defendants raise intellectual disability, concluding that preponderance of the evidence is the only standard of proof which adequately protects intellectually disabled capital defendants from unconstitutional execution.In Atkins v. Virginia the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment prevented the execution of a criminal defendant suffering from intellectual disability. Because the Court in Atkins gave full license to the states to establish procedures to affect the Atkins mandate, those procedural schemes vary widely among states. One procedural choice is the appropriate standard of proof a capital defendant raising intellectual disability must meet. While the majority of states with capital punishment require proof to a preponderance of the evidence, several still require clear and convincing evidence, and one requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.The data and information used in the diagnostic process is inherently uncertain in nature, and the diagnosis is largely dependent on the subjective analysis and interpretation of that uncertain data by each individual clinician. The Supreme Court has recognized the impact of the inherent imprecision of medical diagnosis on the standard of proof for competency to stand trial in Cooper v. Oklahoma, finding only a standard of preponderance of the evidence appropriately considers that imprecision so as to ensure sufficient confidence in the trier of fact’s decision.In Hall v. Florida, the Court relied specifically and significantly on the mental health profession’s research and conclusions regarding intellectual disability, and the Court recognized the imprecision and uncertainty in the diagnosis of intellectual disability. This strongly suggests that should the Supreme Court consider the appropriate standard of proof for capital defendants raising intellectual disability, they would take the same approach they did in Cooper, and reach the same conclusion that preponderance of the evidence is the only standard which complies with Atkins. |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://works.bepress.com/timothy_saviello/1/download/ |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
