INCLUSION DAILY EXPRESS -- Daryl Atkins v. Virginia

Inclusion Daily Express

International Disability Rights News Service
Click here for today's headlines

Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected since 1999.
Click here for daily or weekly delivery . . . OR
Try Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .

DARYL ATKINS V. VIRGINIA

2007
June 14: New Twist In Famous Death Penalty Case
2006
April 26: State High Court Hears Atkins Mental Retardation Appeal
2005
August 22: Daryl Atkins' Attorneys Will Appeal Mental Retardation Verdict
August 5: Jury Says Atkins Does Not Have Mental Retardation; Judge Sets Execution Date
Feb. 3: State High Court Rules Jurors Can Know Of Atkins' Death Sentence When Deciding Mental Retardation
2004
April 1: Atkins' Death Penalty Attorney Replaced
2003
June 6: Jury Must Decide On Atkins' Mental Retardation Claim
2002
June 21: Executions Of Convicts With Mental Retardation Are "Cruel And Unusual" Punishment, High Court Rules
2001
September 27: Supreme Court Replaces McCarver Case To Test Death Penalty

Related resources:
Atkins v. Virginia (Supreme Court of the United States)

The Death Penalty and Mental Retardation (Inclusion Daily Express)

Supreme Court Replaces McCarver Case To Test Death Penalty
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
September 27, 2001

WASHINGTON, DC--The U.S. Supreme Court will soon revisit the question of whether or not executing people with mental retardation violates the Eight Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment".

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that such executions did not violate the constitution. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in the decision that the general public did not appear at the time to oppose the death penalty for convicts with mental retardation.

Public attitudes have changed. Since 1989, eighteen states that have a death penalty have enacted laws prohibiting the execution of people who have mental retardation. At the time of the ruling, only Maryland and Georgia had such laws.

McCarver Case Will Not Be Used

The court on Tuesday announced that it would replace the case of Ernest McCarver, a convicted murderer from North Carolina, with that of Daryl Atkins, a Virginia man who was convicted of kidnapping and shooting to death an airman in 1996.

Atkins was 18 years old when he and an accomplice kidnapped Eric Nesbitt, 21, outside a convenience store and forced him to give them money from an automatic teller machine (ATM). The two then took Nesbitt to a deserted field and shot him eight times.

McCarver had been on death row after his murder conviction for stabbing to death a coworker in 1987. He was within seven hours of his scheduled execution, and had eaten what was to have been his last meal, when the Supreme Court halted the execution in March of this year. The court later decided to use his case to test the constitutionality of executing people determined to have mental retardation.

But this summer, North Carolina passed a law prohibiting such executions. So, the court chose Atkins' case from several others to test, in part because Virginia does not have such a law.

This doesn't mean McCarver is in the clear, however. His case will soon go before a North Carolina state Superior Court judge who will determine whether the state's new law applies to McCarver.

The new law, which goes into effect on Monday, prohibits the execution of anyone with an IQ of 70 or less, which is commonly considered the cut-off for mental retardation. McCarver's IQ was measured at 74 just before his trial, but was measured at 67 this February.

Executions Of Convicts With Mental Retardation Are "Cruel And Unusual" Punishment, High Court Rules
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
June 21, 2002
WASHINGTON, DC--The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" when it is used on people determined to have mental retardation and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In its 6-3 decision on Atkins v. Virginia, the Court cited the growing number of states that have decided on their own to stop such executions in the past 13 years since the Justices ruled on the issue. Two states with a death penalty banned it for such convicts in 1989, when the Supreme Court determined that there was no "national consensus" against executing convicts with mental retardation. Since that ruling, however, sixteen more states have adopted similar guidelines.

The Court noted this change in the nation's attitude and added that defendants considered to have mental retardation do not have the same ability as others to defend themselves in a court. The Court also reasoned that it was "not persuaded that the execution of mentally retarded criminals will measurably advance the deterrent or the retributive purpose of the death penalty.''

"Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct,'' wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority. ''Moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants.''

''Mentally retarded defendants may be less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel and are typically poor witnesses, and their demeanor may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crimes.''

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist disagreed with the majority.

"In my view, these two sources -- the work product of legislatures and sentencing jury determinations -- ought to be the sole indicators by which courts ascertain the contemporary American conceptions of decency for purposes of the Eighth Amendment," Rehnquist wrote.

"To further buttress its appraisal of contemporary societal values, the Court marshals public opinion poll results and evidence that several professional organizations and religious groups have adopted official positions opposing the imposition of the death penalty upon mentally retarded offenders . . . In my view, none should be accorded any weight on the Eighth Amendment scale when the elected representatives of a State's populace have not deemed them persuasive enough to prompt legislative action."

The Court did not specify what is meant by "mental retardation". That is for the individual states to determine. Laws currently vary from one state to the next on how a defendant can prove to have mental retardation. Most require an IQ score of 70 or less and proof that the condition existed before age 18. The states also vary widely as to whether it is judges or juries who decide if the person has mental retardation.

The decision in Atkins v. Virginia is available at this address:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html

Jury Must Decide On Atkins' Mental Retardation Claim
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
June 6, 2003

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA--Virginia's Supreme Court on Friday ordered the York County Circuit Court to hold a hearing to decide whether Daryl Renard Atkins has mental retardation and, therefore, should recieve a life sentence. If they decide he does not have mental retardation, he will die by execution.

On June 20 of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for convicts that have mental retardation, calling such practice "cruel and unusual punishment".

The case the high court used to make that decision was Atkins v. Virginia, and involved the 23-year-old who shot to death a U.S. airman in 1996.

But the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide whether Atkins has mental retardation, nor did it tell Virginia -- or any state -- how to determine if somebody has mental retardation.

Atkins' case was returned to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled on Friday that the York County trial court must assemble a new jury "for the sole purpose of making a determination of mental retardation."

The Virginia court said the jury should use the 2003 General Assembly's definition of mental retardation "as a disability originating before the age of 18 characterized concurrently by . . . significantly subaverage intellectual functioning" and "significant limitations in . . . conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills."

Many disability service systems use an IQ score of 70 or below to indicate mental retardation, measured before the person is an adult. Atkins' defenders say he has an IQ of 59. They emphasize that he has never lived on his own or held a job, and therefore must have mental retardation.

Atkins was convicted of capital murder in 1999. Co-defendant William A. Jones testified that Atkins shot Airman Eric Nesbitt eight times. Jones' life was spared in exchange for his testimony against Atkins. Jones is serving a life term for his part in the crime.

Related:
Atkins v. Virginia (Supreme Court of the United States)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html

Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected since 1999.
Click here for daily or weekly delivery . . . OR
Try Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .

Get your news here!