No. 21-1021

Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction v. Alvin Bernal Jackson

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-01-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (4) Experienced Counsel
Tags: adaptive-skills constitutional-rights criminal-sentencing cruel-and-unusual-punishment death-penalty due-process evidence intellectual-disability judicial-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Punishment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-19 (distributed 4 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether courts may consider adaptive strengths in deciding whether a defendant is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED A defendant seeking to prove an_ intellectual disability that makes him ineligible for the death penalty must prove that he has significant adaptive deficits in at least one of three broad adaptive-skill domains. Applying that requirement, Moore v. Texas held that courts may not offset deficits in one domain with strengths in another. 137 S. Ct. 1039, 1050 n.8 (2017). But it expressly left open whether courts may “consider adaptive strengths alongside adaptive weaknesses in the same adaptive-skill domain.” Id. Since Moore, a large majority of courts have held they may consider a defendant’s strengths in a domain to resolve whether he has deficits there overall. Yet a small minority, including a divided panel of the court of appeals below, hold strengths are irrelevant. The only evidence courts may consider in deciding whether a defendant has adaptive deficits, they maintain, are weaknesses that suggest he does. The question presented is: Whether courts may consider adaptive strengths in deciding whether a defendant is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for the death penalty. (i)

Docket Entries

2022-05-23
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
2022-05-23
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
2022-05-11
Rescheduled.
2022-05-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-29
Rescheduled.
2022-04-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
2022-04-22
Rescheduled.
2022-04-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/22/2022.
2022-04-06
Reply of petitioner Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction filed. (Distributed)
2022-03-21
Brief of respondent Alvin B. Jackson in opposition filed.
2022-03-21
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Alvin B. Jackson.
2022-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 24, 2022.
2022-01-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 22, 2022 to March 24, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2022)

Attorneys

Alvin B. Jackson
Jeffrey Marx Rosenzweig — Respondent
Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction
Nicholas Jacob BronniSolicitor General of Arkansas, Petitioner