Tennessee Supreme Court sets Standards in Determining Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases

• Illinois death penalty abolition reflects trend away from capital punishment [MORE] 

From [HERE] and [HERE] The Tennessee Supreme Court Monday set new standards in death penalty cases for determining whether a defendant was intellectually disabled at the time of the crime.

The ruling in the Memphis-based case of Michael Angelo Coleman affects the application of the death penalty in Tennessee, where by law, those who are intellectually disabled cannot be executed.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled today that lower courts may look at more than IQ numbers in determining whether a death row inmate is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for execution.

In ruling on the case of a Memphis man on death row for more than 30 years, the high court said judges also may consider expert witness opinions to determine whether a test score accurately reflects a person’s functional IQ.

“We find that (state law) does not require that raw scores on I.Q. tests be accepted at their face value and that the courts may consider competent expert testimony showing that a test score does not accurately reflect a person’s functional I.Q. or that the raw I.Q. test score is artificially inflated or deflated,” Justice William Koch Jr. wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion.

The case of Michael Angelo Coleman now returns to Shelby County Criminal Court for further review by Judge W. Mark Ward.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys also will be allowed to present additional witnesses if they choose.

Coleman, 57, who had six prior violent felony convictions, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1980 for the robbery and shooting death of Leon Watson. A codefendant was sentenced to life in prison.

After a series of appeals were rejected, Coleman, who did not deny the shooting, claimed he was mentally retarded at the time of the crime and that he was thus not eligible for the death penalty.

Under Tennessee law, mental retardation, now termed intellectual disability, means significantly below-average intellectual functioning with a functional intelligence quotient of 70 or below; deficits in adaptive behavior, and the intellectual disability must have been manifested by age 18.

The Supreme Court, however, said the law does not indicate what types of evidence may be considered and said there is no requirement that IQ scores be accepted at their face value.

The court said the lower courts should have considered testimony from two defense psychologists who said Coleman is intellectually disabled.

John Campbell, Shelby County Deputy District Attorney General, said he is studying the 46-page ruling and will prepare for a new hearing.

“The law at the time in our hearing was that the defendant had to establish an IQ of 70 or below and it is a bright-line (unambiguous) rule,” said Campbell, adding that he put on no witnesses because the defense had not met it’s burden in the previous hearing. “You’re always going to find somebody who can say ‘Well, even though his IQ is 73, I think he’s retarded.’ Now the judge will have to make a credibility finding (on expert witnesses.) It’s no longer just whether you satisfy the statute.”