Video Highlights Show Successful Appellate Argument In This Review Of Florida’s Legal History.
Synopsis: Michael E. Dutko’s state supreme court arguments reshaped state law in 2001. On August 29, 2000, Mr. Dutko argued in the case of Florida v. Bradford. Charles Bradford is a South Florida chiropractor who had been charged with violating a state law prohibiting contact with accident victims for the purpose of filing P.I.P. insurance claims. However, Mr. Dutko’s argument, in the appeal to the state’s highest court, was that the law, itself, violated Mr. Bradford’s rights to commercial free speech. The Supreme Court handed up its ruling in the case in May 2001.
The oral arguments lasted about 39-minutes; however, the key points of the case are presented in this 8-and-a-half minute video segment.
The PDF of the Florida Supreme Court ruling may be downloaded for your review.
U.S. High Court Releases Audio Of Death Penalty Case In Regular Weekly Update
The United States Supreme Court makes available the audio and the transcripts of arguments held before the court, provided during a weekly transcription update on the Supreme Court’s government website, supremecourt.gov.
Listen to the full audio recording of the Supreme Court hearing in Hall v. Florida
As first written on the BDKPA news section last week, the justices of the high court heard arguments Monday, March 3 in the case of Hall v. Florida, where the justices were asked to refine their 2002 landmark decision, in Atkins v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that a person who is found to be mentally retarded can not be put to death. The justices’ decision was that such a sentence in capital cases violates the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment.
In Florida, the case had been argued before the State’s highest court by Eric Pinkard, who challenged the Florida’s so-called ‘bright line’ cutoff for mental retardation. Mr. Pinkard had argued that Freddie Lee Hall, who had been found mentally retarded long before the 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia, remained so, even though the state of Florida had adopted a cutoff Intelligence Quotient of 70 as the upper limit for mental retardation. His challenge to the state law failed on a split decision, which resulted in the case going to the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Pinkard secured the aid of Washington, D.C. attorney Seth Waxman, who argued before the justices March 3. Mr. Waxman began his arguments by explaining the Florida law did not take into account what is known as the ‘standard error of measurement’ in testing, a model that applies to IQ tests, among others. Mr. Waxman further observed for the justices that Florida’s ‘bright-line’ cutoff does seem to make provisions for any of the other criteria required by Atkins v. Virginia.
The hearing lasted approximately one hour. There is no word from the court of when a ruling may be issued.
In addition to being presented here, the audio and transcript may be heard and viewed on the Supreme Court’s transcription page entry for the Hall v. Florida case.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a person who is ruled mentally deficient can not be put to death. In a landmark 2002 case, Atkins v. Virginia, the justices determined a that executing someone who is mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. However, the justices never set a benchmark for what constitutes a low intelligence quotient, commonly known as I.Q., or mental retardation. Instead, the justices left it to the individual states to set their own line.
Florida did just that, and the so-called “bright line” cutoff number legislators chose is 70. Other states have their own number. For the accused in Florida, if the I.Q. is found to be 71 or higher, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled a sentence of death does not violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as defined in Amendment VIII of the U.S. Constitution and refined by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Atkins v. Virginia ruling of 2002.
Current Death Penalty Case Dates To 1978
The case before the justices this week involves Freddie Lee Hall, who was convicted of the 1978 murders of a pregnant woman and a sheriff’s deputy. Mr. Hall was resentenced in 1992, and his death penalty was upheld. At the time he was resentenced, he was found to be mentally retarded, one of the legal terms commonly used for people with a low I.Q. Florida’s Supreme Court, ruling on Mr. Hall’s case in December 2012, upheld the death sentence, despite the fact Mr. Hall’s I.Q. is 71, just one point above the so-called “bright line” cutoff for mental retardation, which was established long after Hall’s 1992 resentencing.
“Once the statute is applied, Hall morphs from someone who has been ‘mentally retarded his entire life’ to someone who is statutorily barred from attempting to demonstrate concurrent deficits in adaptive functioning …” ~ Florida Supreme Court Justice James E.C. Perry, writing a dissenting opinion when the state Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hall’s death penalty sentence.
Mr. Hall’s attorney, Eric Pinkard, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that there have been several I.Q. tests showing Mr. Hall’s intelligence quotient to be as low as 60 and as high as the current number, 71, which was the result of a 2009 I.Q. test.
I.Q. Does Not Stay The Same, According To Numerous Studies
It is well settled that an I.Q. changes over time, and that a person’s emotional condition, nutrition, physical health, social and economic status, and a host of other factors, can all influence an I.Q. test result. The American Psychological Association published a 1996 report on I.Q., with research notes from a number of collegiate psychologists, including one from the University of North Florida, that found I.Q. varies based on these factors. The report can be found at the University of Connecticut website. Another I.Q. study, by the Journal for the Association of Psychological Science is also online for public viewing.
When the Florida Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hall’s death sentence, Mr. Pinkard filed a writ of certiorari within a matter of months, appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part of his brief includes the dissenting statements of at least two of the Florida justices, Hon. Jorge Labarga and Hon. James E.C. Perry.
Justice Labarga wrote, “The situation present in Florida, in which the Legislature has established a bright-line cutoff score that this Court has upheld, now creates a significant risk that a defendant who has once been found to be mentally retarded may still be executed.”
Justice Perry agreed with Justice Labarga, writing, in part, “The current interpretation of the statutory scheme will lead to the execution of a retarded man in this case. Hall had been found by the courts to be mentally retarded before the statute was adopted.”
Justice Perry’s dissenting opinion further explained that the state legislature’s adoption of the so-called “bright-line cutoff” for mental retardation retroactively altered Mr. Hall’s status. “Once the statute is applied, Hall morphs from someone who has been ‘mentally retarded his entire life’ to someone who is statutorily barred from attempting to demonstrate concurrent deficits in adaptive functioning to establish retardation.” In other words, the law prevents Mr. Hall from proving his mental deficiency because the I.Q. score allegedly demonstrates the opposite circumstance.
Supreme Court Ruling Will Affect States Other Than Florida
The case is complex, and it could have ramifications beyond Florida. Brian Kammer, an attorney in Georgia who has represented low-I.Q. defendants on death row, said the case has the potential to force states to rewrite their “bright-line” cutoff laws. “To the extend [a Supreme Court ruling] deals with a state’s prerogative to define ‘mental retardation’ a certain way, it would very likely have applicability to other states … in setting limits on that prerogative,” Kammer told USA Today in October 2013.