(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up cases on intellectual disability in death sentences and limits on the number of jurors.
(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up cases on intellectual disability in death sentences and limits on the number of jurors. (The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up cases on intellectual disability in death sentences and limits on the number of jurors. Justices on the high court are expected to hear the cases in the fall and release decisions for each in 2027. One case, Guerrero v. Johnson, is set to determine to what extent intellectual disabilities should play a role in sentencing determinations for people convicted of a crime. The case focuses on Dexter Johnson, who was sentenced to death after being convicted for the kidnapping, rape and murder of Maria Aparece in 2006. Johnson sought a claim of intellectual disability after his sentencing, which would have prevented him from being sentenced to death, according to previous Supreme Court precedent. Lawyers for Johnson used diagnostic tools in the DSM-V, published in 2013, to support his claim of intellectual disability. “Before the DSM-5’s publication and acceptance, Mr. Johnson had ‘no possibility of merit.’ But because the criteria for assessing intellectual disability has changed, his claim now has possible merit,” lawyers for Johnson wrote. Lawyers for Eric Guerrero, director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Correctional Institutions Division, said Johnson’s claim to intellectual disability is not appropriate. The lawyers said Johnson could not make an argument based on evidence that has appeared since his initial sentence. “This holding erases the strict limits on claims based on new evidence,” lawyers for Texas wrote. “It had no possibility of merit without the new evidence.” Lawyers in Texas are pushing for stricter regulations on the kinds of evidence prisoners can use in avoiding a death sentence trial. Lower courts are split as to what extent new evidence can be used to make determinations.
