Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, "Court asked to find mental retardation burden unconstitutional." It's written by Bill Rankin.
A lawyer for a convicted killer said Georgia should no longer be the only state in the country that sets the highest legal threshold possible for death-penalty defendants who raise mental retardation claims.
In arguments on Monday before the state Supreme Court, David Gossett, a lawyer for Alphonso Stripling, said requiring such defendants to do this -- proving mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt -- is unconstitutional.
Because of Georgia's law, "One thing is certain: mentally retarded defendants will be executed," Gossett said. The U.S. Supreme Court prohibited this in a ruling handed down in 2002, he noted.
Among states with the death penalty, 22 require defendants to prove mental retardation by the lowest legal threshold -- that he or she is more likely than not fits this description. Four other states have adopted a slightly tougher test.
About 10 Georgia death-row inmates who failed to prove mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt could receive new hearings if the court finds Georgia's standard unconstitutional.
And:
Stripling finds himself in a difficult position on appeal. In 2003, a year after the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of the mentally retarded, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Last June, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court found Georgia's standard unconstitutional, but the full court vacated that ruling and is reconsidering the issue.
"Court may tighten death penalty rules," is the title of Greg Bluestein's AP filing, via Coastal Courier.
Georgia's death penalty statute was in the crosshairs again Monday as the state's top court considered whether capital defendants have to meet an unfair standard to prove they are mentally disabled to avoid an execution.
The Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from Alphonso Stripling, who claims the state cannot seek the death penalty against him for the 1988 killings of two co-workers because he is mentally disabled. Prosecutors, meanwhile, say they want the chance to prove he is mentally competent.
Stripling's case is the latest legal scrutiny of the policy Georgia etched out in 1988, when it became the first state to ban executing mentally disabled inmates. But Georgia also is the only state that requires defendants to prove they are mentally disabled beyond a reasonable doubt — the most stringent legal standard.
A federal three-judge panel last year struck down the law by a 2-1 vote, saying the law violates the ban against cruel and unusual punishment and could result in the execution of those with mental disabilities, which was barred by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. The full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is now reviewing the ruling.
Stripling's case could give the Georgia Supreme Court an avenue to weigh in on the debate.
And:
The court, which did not immediately release its decision, seemed split.
Justice David Nahmias and his colleagues noted the court's previous rulings that upheld the standard. Justice Robert Benham then asked Dooley if the state would be willing to accept a few deaths of mentally disabled death row inmates as "collateral damage" for its policy.
"I think that would be wrong. I do believe there are standards in place that protect defendants in Georgia," the prosecutor responded. "It only takes one person to say I'm not going to agree to a death penalty," he said, noting that the death sentence cannot be imposed unless a jury unanimously recommends it.
More on the 11th Circuit's panel ruling last June is at the link. Earlier coverage of the issue from Georgia begins at the link; related posts, in the mental retardation index.
More on Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling banning the execution of those with mental retardation, is via Oyez. As noted before, mental retardation is now generally referred to as a developmental disability. Because it has a specific meaning with respect to capital cases, I continue to use the older term.
Comments