The Court of Criminal Appeals rulings in Ex Parte Butler and Ex Parte Matamoros are available in Adobe .pdf format.
Brandi Grissom posts, "Appeals Court Orders Re-evaluation of 2 Death Row Cases," at Texas Tribune. Here's an extended excerpt:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday ordered lower courts to review two death penalty cases that involved a psychologist who was reprimanded earlier this year for using questionable methods to determine whether defendants were intellectually competent enough to face capital punishment.
"What we're seeing is a growing awareness on the part of the Court of Criminal Appeals for scientific integrity in criminal cases," said Kathryn Kase, interim executive director of the Texas Defender Services, which represents death row inmates. "The evidence of retardation in both of these cases is pretty compelling."
The state's highest criminal court sent the cases of Steven Butler and John Matamoros back to Harris County courts to re-evaluate the evidence used to sentence the two men to death. Dr. George Denkowski examined both of the men and told the juries they did not suffer from mental retardation.
In April of this year, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (TSBEP), issued a reprimand against Denkowksi, whose methods were widely criticized. Denkowksi agreed not to conduct intellectual disability evaluations in future criminal cases and to pay a fine of $5,500. In return, the board dismissed the complaints against him. The psychologist admitted no wrongdoing and defended his practice. But defense lawyers were hopeful that the reprimand would prompt the courts to review other cases where juries relied on Denkowski's evaluations to hand down death sentences.
Denkowski evaluated 14 inmates who are now on Texas’ death row — and two others who were subsequently executed — and found them intellectually competent enough to face the death penalty.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that states cannot execute mentally handicapped people. The court, though, left it to the states to create guidelines for determining whether a person is mentally handicapped. Texas courts have generally adopted a three-part definition that requires the convicted inmate to have below average intellectual function, lack adaptive behavior skills and to have had those problems from a young age.
Prosecutors regularly relied on Denkowski to perform psychological evaluations to determine whether a murder suspect would be eligible for execution. But in 2009, other psychologists and defense lawyers complained to the TSBEP that Denkowski used unscientific methods that artificially inflated intelligence scores to make defendants eligible for the death penalty.
And:
Kase said she hoped the court would also order re-evaluation of the other death penalty cases in which Denkowski examined the defendants.
"Exonerations, I think, have caused the court to become concerned about the integrity of forensic evidence," she said. "That’s really, really important here, where the decision about whether someone has retardation is a matter of life and death."
Earlier coverage of the Denkowski sanction begins at the link.
More on Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling banning the execution of those with mental retardation, is via Oyez.
As I often point out, mental retardation is now generally referred to as a developmental or intellectual disability. Because it has a specific meaning with respect to capital cases, I continue to use the older term. Related posts are in the mental retardation index.
Comments