11th Circuit: Burden that Georgia places on death-penalty defendants unconstitutional

[usregimechange]

The burden that Georgia places on death-penalty defendants to prove they are mentally retarded -- and thus ineligible for execution -- is unconstitutional, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled Friday.

The court, in a 2-1 decision, said that requiring defendants to prove they are mentally retarded beyond a reasonable doubt violates the Eighth Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment. It also will "result in the execution of the mentally retarded," which the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited in 2002.

The decision should result in new hearings for up to 10 inmates on Georgia's death row who previously raised mental retardation claims at trial, said Brian Kammer, director of the Georgia Appellate Practice and Educational Resource Center, which handles death-row appeals. It also will affect all death cases going forward in which defendants claim to be mentally retarded.

The ruling corrects a "serious defect" in Georgia's death-penalty system, Kammer said. " ensures that Georgia defendants will finally have meaningful protection from wrongful execution if they are mentally retarded."

The state Attorney General's Office is reviewing the decision, spokesman Russ Willard said. It could ask the entire, 12-member 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the ruling by the three-judge panel or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.ajc.com/news/mental-retardation-burden-of-552290.html



Majority

Barkett, Rosemary (nominated by William J. Clinton on September 24, 1993)

Marcus, Stanley (nominated by William J. Clinton on September 25, 1997)

IV. Conclusion
Atkins prohibits the execution of all mentally retarded defendants, not only the severe or profound mentally retarded, and it directs the states to create appropriate procedures that protect all of those individuals. The application of Georgia’s reasonable doubt standard will necessarily result in the deaths of mentally retarded offenders by incorrect identification. Plainly, that standard is not an “appropriate way” to vindicate a mentally retarded offender’s constitutional right not to be put to death. Applying the deference required under AEDPA, we hold that the conclusion reached by the Georgia Supreme Court that the Eighth Amendment protects only those capital offenders whose retardation is “significant enough” to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt eviscerates the command of the Eighth Amendment that the mentally retarded shall not be executed, and is therefore “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” in Atkins. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Hill’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Minority

Hull, Frank (nominated by William J. Clinton on June 18, 1997)

IV. CONCLUSION
Even if the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision is considered incorrect or unwise by a federal judge, and even if the State of Georgia has inappropriately struck the balance between two competing interests in § 17-7-131(c)(3), AEDPA precludes federal circuit courts from imposing their will, invalidating a state statute, § 17-7-131(c)(3), as unconstitutional, and reversing the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in the absence of “clearly established” federal law, which the United States Supreme Court admonishes is a holding of that Court. There is no United States Supreme Court case suggesting, much less holding, that a reasonable-doubt burden of proof for claims of mental retardation violates the Eighth Amendment. Atkins did not answer that question. Whether I agree with the Georgia Supreme Court or not, AEDPA requires that this federal court affirm the denial of Hill’s § 2254 petition. Indeed, I need not decide the constitutional question as to Georgia’s burden of proof statute, but say only that the United States Supreme Court has not decided it either and thus I must sustain the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision. Accordingly, I must dissent from the majority’s invalidating a state statute as unconstitutional, effectively reversing the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision, and refusing to follow AEDPA.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200815444.pdf


They may have a good shot overturning this on appeal to the full circuit as the Clinton nominees are fragmented and Republicans dominate the 11th Circuit 7-5. It would be interesting to see how newly seated Obama nominee Beverly Martin would rule.