About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


26 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 347 (2015)
Courts' Elusive Search for the Meaning of Intellectual Disability for Evaluating Atkins Claims

handle is hein.journals/ufpp26 and id is 365 raw text is: COURTS' ELUSIVE SEARCH FOR THE MEANING OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY FOR EVALUATING ATKINS CLAIMS Susan Unok Marks* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................348 A. Background on Death Penalty for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities................ ..............350 1. Historical Treatment of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities ................. .....351 2. Continuing Problems with Attempts to Measure Intellectual Disability .................. .....352 B. State Procedures for Addressing Atkins Claims..................354 1. Evaluating Atkins Claims ................. .....354 2. Burden of Proof Standards ..........................356 3. Who Determines Whether Defendant has Intellectual Disabilities ................. .....357 II. EFFECT OF A TKINs IN SELECTED STATES .......... ......358 A. Application ofAtkins...........................358 B. Features of Successful Atkins Claims ......... ..... 362 C. Features ofFailedAtkins Claims Resulting in Execution ......................... 366 III. ISSUES FOR FUTURE ATKINS CLAIMS............... .....376 A. Emerging Trends in Defining Intellectual Disability........... 376 B. Impact of Hall v. Florida ........................ 377 IV. CONCLUSION.............................378 A. Emerging Views ofIntellectual Disability ............ 379 B. Ending the Elusive Search . .................. ..... 380 When the Supreme Court's 2002 Atkins decision held that it was unconstitutional to execute defendants with intellectual disability, the ruling was heralded as an important protection for these vulnerable defendants. However, courts have been faced with a number of conceptual and procedural issues because determining who has an intellectual disability has remained elusive, especially for defendants * J.D., Ph.D. The Author wishes to thank Professor Keith Swisher of Arizona Summit Law School for his guidance in conceptualizing this manuscript. 347