On Remand, Eleventh Circuit Clarifies, Affirms Grant of Habeas Relief to Death Row Prisoner
Joseph Clifton Smith beat Durk Van Dam to death during a robbery, and was sentenced to death following his conviction in 1997. He has been appealing his case for almost three decades, most recently resulting in a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and remand to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2021, an Alabama federal district court granted Smith’s habeas petition and vacated his death sentence, finding he met the criteria for intellectual disability based on a series of IQ test scores ranging from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court had ruled in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), that capital punishment cannot be applied to intellectually disabled prisoners.
The threshold for intellectual disability is typically an IQ of 70 or below, which is also the definition used under Alabama law. However, the district court found the margin of error in the tests meant Smith could have an IQ as low as 69, plus he had “substantial deficits in adaptive behavior” that had manifested during his childhood.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on May 19, 2023, finding no error by the lower court. See: Smith v. Comm ‘r, Ala. Dep’t. of Corr., 67 F.4th 1335 (11th Cir. 2023). [See also: PLN, Feb. 2024, p.11.] The state petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted, and on November 4, 2024, the Court issued a terse order vacating and remanding the appellate decision.
The Supreme Court noted the “Eleventh Circuit’s opinion can be read in two ways.” It may have concluded that “the lower end of the standard-error range for Smith’s lowest IQ score is 69,” which would “suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range … is dispositive.” Alternately, the appellate court could have used “a more holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that consider the relevant evidence,” including relevant expert testimony.
Writing that the Court’s “ultimate assessment of any petition for certiorari … may depend on the basis for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision,” the case was remanded for the Court of Appeals to clarify its ruling. See: Hamm v. Smith, 604 U.S. 1 (2024).
The appellate court wasted no time, issuing a decision ten days later on November 14. It again affirmed the district court’s order vacating Smith’s death sentence, specifying it had used a “holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence.” It added that it “unambiguously reject[ed] any suggestion that a court may ever conclude that a capital defendant suffers from significantly subaverage intellectual functioning based solely on the fact that the lower end of the standard-error range for his lowest of multiple IQ scores is 69.”
The Court of Appeals further held, again, that “none of the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous,” as “the full record plausibly supports each of them.” The state also wasted no time, filing a renewed petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on February 12, 2025. See: Smith v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28981 (11th Cir.), petition for cert. filed.
On June 6, the Supreme Court released an order announcing that it will hear the appeal from the Alabama Attorney General’s Office. When it’s argued this fall, the case could challenge the 23-year-old precedent set by Atkins v. Virginia, potentially making it harder to stop an execution on the grounds of intellectual disability.
Additional sources: The Independent
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Smith v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr.
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28981 (11th Cir.) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |