Supreme Court Reviews Alabama’s Death Penalty Case for Disabled Man

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday regarding the appeal from Alabama to execute Joseph Clifton Smith, a man classified as intellectually disabled by lower federal courts. This case could significantly affect the standards used for determining whether convicted murderers can avoid execution due to intellectual disabilities.

Smith, who is now 55 years old, has spent approximately half his life on death row following his conviction for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam in Mobile County. The central issue in his appeal revolves around conflicting IQ scores, as Smith’s tests have varied between 72 and 78, which are just above the commonly accepted threshold of 70 for intellectual disability.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing intellectually disabled individuals is unconstitutional. Subsequent cases in 2014 and 2017 further emphasized the need for states to consider a range of evidence in borderline cases, taking into account potential margins of error in IQ testing. These rulings advocate for a holistic approach to assessing intellectual disabilities, rather than relying solely on numerical scores.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall argues that Smith has not sufficiently demonstrated that his IQ is 70 or below, stating, “He has multiple scores in the seventies,” and questioning the validity of the holistic approach taken by lower courts. His comments reflect a broader concern about how to manage the continuum of IQ scores in legal contexts.

In contrast, Smith’s legal team contends that the lower courts correctly applied the law by conducting a comprehensive assessment of all relevant evidence. They assert that diagnosing intellectual disabilities based solely on IQ scores is flawed. Rights organizations have echoed this sentiment in their briefs, underscoring the inadequacies of relying solely on such metrics.

Smith was convicted and sentenced to death after being found guilty of beating Van Dam to death with a hammer and robbing him. The brutal crime resulted in Van Dam’s death being classified as a homicide, with the prosecution presenting evidence that he was robbed of $150, his tools, and his boots.

In 2021, a federal judge vacated Smith’s death sentence, acknowledging that “this is a close case,” but the specifics of Alabama law define intellectual disability as having an IQ of 70 or below combined with significant deficits in adaptive behavior that manifest before the age of 18.

As the justices prepare to reassess Smith’s case, they will weigh the implications of their decision on individuals with similar circumstances. The involvement of the Trump administration and 20 states, which have expressed support for Alabama’s position, indicates the broader legal and ethical ramifications of this case. Solicitor General D. John Sauer articulated the administration’s stance, arguing that Smith “did not meet his burden of proving his IQ was likely 70 or below.”

This case not only highlights the complexities of the legal definitions surrounding intellectual disability but also raises pressing questions about the intersection of mental health, ethics, and capital punishment in the United States. The outcome could reshape the landscape for how courts assess intellectual disabilities, potentially impacting future cases involving the death penalty.