Inmate Whose Case Set Supreme Court Precedent Found Not Mentally Retarded
Sue Lindsey
The Associated Press
08-08-2005

A death row inmate whose case led to the Supreme Court's ban on executing the mentally retarded was found mentally competent by a Virginia jury Friday and a judge immediately scheduled his execution.
Jurors deliberated 13 hours over two days before finding Daryl Atkins not mentally retarded.

This case just illustrates that while many people might agree that we shouldn't execute the retarded (I'm not conceding that I agree with the reasoning in the Atkins opinion), this defendant just doesn't fit into that category. Defense attorneys in this case put too much weight on IQ scores, which, unfortunately for Mr. Atkins, actually went up over the last few years. It seems that the intellectual stimulation of court made him smarter. But when they looked at his adaptive skills and the big picture over his lifetime, the jury made the decision that he wasn't retarded. I mean, this was a man who had the wherewithall to carry out a fairly elaborate crime.

Many of our socially conscious fellow citizens take it as an article of faith that IQ tests are "culturally biased." Will they now argue that those same tests are reliable in death penalty cases?

Actually the tests are very reliable -- provided the data arises from a period wherein the defendant has no incentive to perform at less than optimal level. In the Atkins case, the defendant had no history of repeated measures in intelligence showing he was mentally retarded as a child, no history of having been placed in special education classes for the mentally retarded, no history of having received services for the mentally retarded as an adult, no history of having worked in a sheltered workshop because his adaptive capacities were such that he could not handle the ordinary affairs of life.
Rather, he had a history of 18 prior felony arrests, was very street wise, concealed the weapon, and was deliberate and planned in his endeavors.
Moreover, the single test given him was subsequent to the arrest! And consider the testimony of the opposing expert:
�In addition to Dr. Nelson's testimony, the jury heard testimony from Dr. Stanton E. Samenow, a forensic clinical psychologist called as a witness by the Commonwealth. Based on two interviews with Atkins, Dr. Samenow "sharply disagree[d]" with Dr. Nelson's conclusion that Atkins is mildly mentally retarded. Instead, Dr. Samenow testified that Atkins is of at least average intelligence. Dr. Samenow based his conclusion on Atkins' vocabulary, knowledge of current events, and other factors from the Wechsler Memory Scale, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Thematic Apperception Test. For example, Atkins knew that John F. Kennedy was the president in 1961. He also correctly identified the last two presidents, as well as Virginia's current governor. Dr. Samenow further explained that Atkins used "sophisticated words" such as "orchestra," "decimal," and "parable;" that Atkins could recall information Dr. Samenow asked him to remember; and that Atkins could put together a story involving cause and effect.
Dr. Samenow also reviewed Atkins' academic records and noted that, while Atkins had passed the Literacy Passport Test, his academic performance had been terrible and that his school records were "punctuated with statements" by teachers about Atkins' lack of motivation and concentration, his poor study habits, and his ability to do better in school. Finally, Dr. Samenow, like Dr. Nelson, opined that Atkins was able to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law, and that Atkins satisfies most of the criteria for the diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder�

The issue in such cases is but whether it can be established that prior to the event in question, is there a long, established, and unequivocal history of mental retardation � meeting the Texas Health & Safety Code definition therefor. IQ doesn�t �go up� � though bright but illiterate persons can learn to read. The problem both for prosecution and defense is establishing the �concomitant deficits in adaptive behavior� � for which behavior in the act, in the jail awaiting trial, with other inmates, etc. are all relevant.

flj