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


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



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.