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


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



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.