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


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



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.