Posted on 02/19/2019 8:12:53 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a death sentence for a Texas man who argued he could not be put to death because he is intellectually disabled.
The justices ruled 6-3, which included Chief Justice John Roberts, for Bobby James Moore.
The case centers on Moore's conviction of capital murder for fatally shooting a store clerk during a 1980 robbery.
Moore's lawyers have argued his death sentence violates the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment because he is intellectually disabled. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has twice ruled that Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is eligible for the death penalty.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court's first ruling and told the court to reassess Moore's intellectual disability under more contemporary standards.
The high court tossed out the lower court's second opinion on Tuesday.
"We conclude that the appeals court’s opinion, when taken as a whole and when read in the light both of our prior opinion and the trial court record, rests upon analysis too much of which too closely resembles what we previously found improper," the majority said in an unsigned opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
SCOTUS is on a slow march to abolishing the death penalty in this country. That seems clear to me.
without opining on the ruling or particulars of the case.....this takes 39 years?
So you have to be “smart enough”....to DIE? Clearly he was smart enough to plan and commit an armed robbery, to obtain and load a gun, and shoot it in the act of murder.
Self-contradictory argument. If he is intelligent enough to put forth the argument that he is intellectually disabled, then he is intelligent enough to understand his crime and therefore, not intellectually disabled. Catch-22.
Roberts the child trafficking butt-pirate strikes again.
And if diminished capacity is his defense, how smart do you have to be to understand that killing someone while you’re committing a robbery is a bad thing to do?
Does anyone believe the 8th Amendment should be this broadly construed?
He didn’t put forth the argument. His leftist public defenders or private lawyers looking to make a name pro bono did. Silver tongued devils.
But the agree he needs a noose or needle or to be gunned.
All capital punishment is cruel. But not all punishment is unusual. That’s why it’s “cruel AND unusual”, and not “cruel OR unusual”.
What is unusual about putting a murderer to death?
He knew enough how to purchase a gun and to pull the trigger.
” the Court of Criminal Appeals used Texas precedent in determining whether Moore was mentally disabled or not; this precedent was Ex parte Briseno. Briseno uses a test of diagnosing mental disabilities, using the following criteria (called “The Briseno Factors” by the Court):
Did those who knew the person best during the developmental stage—his family, friends, teachers, employers, authorities—think he was mentally retarded at that time, and, if so, act in accordance with that determination?
Has the person formulated plans and carried them through or is his conduct impulsive?
Does his conduct show leadership or does it show that he is led around by others?
Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable?
Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions or do his responses wander from subject to subject?
Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others’ interests?
Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose?
Using the Briseno factors, the CCA conducted an I.Q. test in 1989, which he scored a 74 I.Q. on. At the time, as Justice Ginsburg notes, the standard error for the I.Q. test was 5 points in both directions, meaning that Moore had an I.Q. range of 69 to 79. In Atkins, the Court noted that an I.Q. score of 70 or lower was generally indicative of an intellectual disability.
While noting the low scoring I.Q., the CCA argued that because Moore had displayed general ability to persevere despite his disability - he had been able to be employed in field work, for example - he was able to be executed while not violating Atkins.”
This is our psycho Supreme Court, giving a final gift to Ginsburg since she’s at deaths door and was eyeballs deep into this case.
No justice for the 70 year old woman he murdered.
So now that they have tossed his death sentence, does the victim’s family get to start playing that game of protesting his parole every couple years?
If murderer cannot be executed due to diminished mental capacity, why was he convicted in the first place?
If he argued, then how's he intellectually disabled. Or was it his attorneys, huh.
Seems he was intellectually able to know he could get money by robbing a store and that he'd need a loaded gun to shoot the cashier. Texas should have executed him decades years ago. That's the problem with death row, they stay on it for 40 years.
What’s the logical connection? Why is it OK to execute a smart person but not a moron?
He still had to agree to it, which means he was intelligent enough to understand the argument. That is, unless they had a court order proclaiming him incompetent, in which case this ruling would have been moot.
I always find it amusing how the left is always outraged when anyone points out that blacks have an average IQ of 85, but they are always ready to use IQ as a way to challenge the death penalty imposed on a black with a lower than average IQ.
Thomas dissented. He's the only thing we've been able to count on for decades having anything to do with Washington, D.C.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.