Montgomery, AL – Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to present arguments in Hamm v. Smith, a case examining how courts evaluate claims of intellectual disability in capital punishment cases and the extent to which states may enforce death sentences under existing legal standards.
The case involves Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam. Court records show that Smith and an accomplice killed Van Dam after luring him to a remote wooded area under the pretense of offering him a ride. Van Dam suffered extensive injuries and later died. Smith confessed to the robbery and murder and was sentenced to death under Alabama law.
Smith later sought to halt enforcement of his sentence by claiming he is intellectually disabled. In Atkins v. Virginia(2002), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of intellectually disabled offenders violates the Constitution. Following that decision, Alabama adopted a three-part standard requiring an offender to prove significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive behavior, and onset during childhood. The burden of proof is placed on the offender.
According to the State, Smith was evaluated multiple times in state and federal proceedings. Across five IQ tests administered over several years, Smith’s scores ranged from 72 to 78. Alabama argues that these results place Smith above the threshold used to establish intellectual disability under state law.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted Smith relief, reasoning that one of the scores near the threshold could be considered equivalent to an IQ of 70 when accounting for statistical margins of error. Alabama appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate court improperly discounted the cumulative effect of multiple test results.
During oral argument, Alabama Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing contended that determinations of intellectual disability should be based on the totality of the evidence, including all IQ scores, rather than theoretical estimates. He argued that Smith failed to meet his burden of proof under Alabama’s standard.
Attorney General Marshall stated that Alabama was defending its sentencing authority and the use of evidence-based standards in capital cases. He argued that allowing courts to rely on hypothetical adjustments rather than actual test results could undermine states’ ability to enforce criminal sentences.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling is expected to clarify how lower courts should apply intellectual disability standards in capital cases and may have implications for states beyond Alabama.
