CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


After The Trial Blog

The After The Trial blog presents insights on ongoing and recent trials around the state of Alabama, including weekly criminal law round-ups.

Supreme Court Update - New Protections Against Executing The Mentally Disabled

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, March 30, 2017


Moore v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, March 28/2017)


Moore was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In post-trial proceedings, a circuit court concluded that Mr. Moore was intellectually disabled and, thus, ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___ (2014). The circuit court based its decision on the most current medical guidelines. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) rejected that conclusion and re-instated Moore’s death sentence. The CCA concluded that the circuit court erred in not following factors laid out in Ex parte Briseno, 135 S. W. 3d 1( 2004), which relied upon medical authority from 1992. Moore appealed, claiming the CCA’s reasoning violated the Eighth Amendment.



In Atkins, the Supreme Court opened the door to allow states to develop their own tests for determining intellectual disability and ineligibility for the death penalty. However, as the states have developed different tests, the Court has indicated it will review these procedures to determine whether the states have created “an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. at ___. Here, the Court took aim at Texas’ Atkins test for determining intellectual disability which was centered around out-dated medical information and court-created “factors” that have been widely criticized.


In holding that Mr. Moore was ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins, the circuit court relied on medical diagnostic standards coming from the 11th edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Development Disabilities (“AAIDD”) clinical manual and the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-5”) published by the American Psychiatric Association. The court followed the “generally accepted, uncontroversial intellectual-disability diagnostic definitions” in reaching their conclusion. Basically, the circuit court relied on the most up-to-date diagnostic material in assessing Moore.


The CCA rejected the circuit court’s conclusion and chastised it for not applying the Briseno test for determining intellectual disability. The Briseno test was based upon the 9th edition of the AAIDD and included a seven-factor test that was not grounded in any medical authority -- just a judicial creation. The CCA recognized that the standards in the AAIDD may have changed, but concluded that the Briseno test “remained adequately informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”


The Supreme Court concluded that the CCA’s reliance on out-dated medical information and “factors” that have been widely criticized and rejected in the legal and medical community could not comport with the Eighth Amendment as well as Atkins and Hall. While the State’s have leeway in formulating their own approach to addressing Atkins claims, the cornerstone of any scheme must be “the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”



Read the decision here



If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.


Recent Posts


ring v arizona Lucky D Arcade Pleasant Grove Alabama aziz sayyed greene county alabama debtor prison Adamsville alabama brian fredick lucas marion county executions fourth amendment adnan syed, economic growth alabama law enforcement agency homicide rate habeas corpus relief drug seizure kidnapping 2016 election, brendan dassey, steve avery, making a murderer, scotus, netflix felony assaults texas abuse mount olive alabama criminal justice reform, theft baldwin county alabama john earle redfearn IV v state tuscaloosa alabama breaking and entering talladega superspeedway Walker County Alabama Joshua Reese asia mcclain embezzlement CCA update Fentanyl Guy Terrell Junior implied consent bomb threat levins v state church robberies fort payne alabama court of criminal appeals bailey v us capital punishment hall v florida st clair county alabama lauderdale county alabama banville v state pruitt v state warrantless blood draws eighth amendment, shooting birchfield v north dakota Malone v State Dylann Roof alabama street racing public assistance fraud mcwilliams v dunn car accident smith v state warrior alabama mccalla alabama stanley brent chapman christian guitierez the mannequin challenge avondale alabama drug trafficking, Tommy Arthur Wesley Adam Whitworth Sardis Alabama fake kidnapping, fraud blountsville alabama ferguson missouri narcotics investigation moore v texas assault apprendi v new jersey alabama supreme court blount county alabama Easter mike gilotti jerry bohannon Glaze v State bernard v north dakota albertville alabama state of alabama operation bullseye state of arizona New York Times towles v state court systems, madison alabama minor offenses Mike Hubbard underage drinking hoover alabama Stephen Breyer terell corey mcmullin Alabaster alabama limestone county alabama Justice Sotomayor fairfield alabama, eugene lee jones v state brookside alabama decatur alabama Jefferson County Alabama beylund v north dakota William Pryor shelby county birmingham alabama benjamin todd acton drug possession, drug busts capital murder unlawful manufacturing department of justice, clarence thomas identity theft hanceville alabama mountain brook alabama self defense tarrant alabama edwards v arizona pelham alabama Benn v State pinson alabama robberies kenneth eugene billups ake v oklahoma Kay Ivey morgan county alabama utah v strieff operation crackdown fraudulent checks alfonso morris crime of passion cullman alabama Woods v State drug smuggling department of justice boaz alabama brendan dassey pell city alabama peyton pruitt Thomas Hardiman trussville alabama prostitution sting animal cruelty Gardendale Alabama legende v state strickland v washington hurst v florida homicide home repair fraud constitutional violations SCOTUS, Briarwood Presbyterian Church burglary parole constitutional law, criminal justice Shonda Walker, calhoun county alabama domestic violence nathan woods brady v maryland keith v state florence alabama baltimore city circuit court lethal injection bessemer alabama drug activity West Alabama Tracie Todd maryland court of special appeals gun rights Etowah County Alabama, aiding and abetting death penalty, oneonta alabama utah supreme court Eutaw Alabama shooting death sheffield v state social media second amendment ex parte briseno montgomery alabama 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Alonzo Ephraim gun control netflix judicial override kimberly alabama Kareem Dacar Gaymon abduction domestic abuse lamar county midazolam debit card skimming scams dothan alabama npr US Supreme Court Update endangerment of a child sentencing law and policy blog summaries sexual assault christmas shooting alabama criminal law roundup huntsville steve avery anniston alabama, LWOP springville alabama Rule 32 arson editorial foley alabama mobile alabama drug crimes Marengo County Alabama making a murderer gadsden alabama road rage illegal gun carry OJ Simpson lethal injection drugs eric sterling fultondale alabama eleventh circuit ruling nicholas hawkins huntsville alabama morris alabama adger alabama scotus south carolina theft of property stoves v state sarah koenig Neil Gorsuch dora alabama dekalb county alabama Xavier Beasley serial Hillary Clinton, sixth amendment armed robbery hurst mandamus OJ Simpson Made in America rainbow city alabama court of criminal appeal releases heflin alabama illegal gambling campbell v state mulga alabama § 13A-3-23(d) immunity hearing moving violations abandonment death penalty cherokee county alabama Ingmire v State Donald Trump, hoax destructive devices concealed carry § 13A-3-23 forced isolation betton v state russell calhoun shoplifting Samuel Alito capital offenses heritage christian university murder criminal mischief attempted murder battles v state negligent homicide



These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among  other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Get Free Legal Advice  Contact us for a complimentary legal consultation

I am interested in scheduling a free legal consultation and receiving additional information.

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Thank you, your  entry has been  received.

© 2017 The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |


As required by Rule 7.2(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.