QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Elsa Alcala, who until January was a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals and dissented against her colleagues in both of the Moore decisions, said Tuesday's ruling by the high court brought tears to her eyes. "It feels like the weight of the world has lifted for a moment in time," she said."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The Texas court previously relied on decades-old medical standards and a controversial set of factors created by judges to make the determination, including how well the inmate could lie. After that ruling, the prosecutor sided with Moore and said that he is intellectually disabled, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals still disagreed, claiming last June that he was eligible for execution under current medical standards as well. Now, the high court has stepped in again, and this time, the majority of justices made clear that Moore has shown he is disabled and therefore ineligible for execution. The court's opinion knocked the Texas court for relying on the same methods it had ruled against in the 2017 opinion, like focusing on Moore's strengths instead of his weaknesses, especially strengths gained in a controlled prison environment. The justices also said that despite the Texas court saying it had eliminated its controversial set of factors, which the high court said were problematic for advancing stereotypes, "it seems to have used many of those factors in reaching its conclusion."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "For the second time, U.S. Supreme Court reverses death sentence decision for Texas inmate Bobby Moore," by reporter Jolie McCullough, published by The Texas Tribune on February 19, 2019.
SUB-HEADING: "This time, the majority of the justices said Moore has shown he is intellectually disabled."
GIST: "For the second time, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals' way of determining if a death row inmate is
intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution. The high court made that determination Tuesday in the case of Bobby Moore, whom the court decided is intellectually disabled. Moore's case highlights the complexities surrounding intellectual
disability and the death penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that those
with intellectual disabilities can’t be executed, and after reviewing
Moore’s case in 2016, it tossed out the way
the Texas court determines the disability in 2017. The Texas court
previously relied on decades-old medical standards and a controversial
set of factors created by judges to make the determination, including
how well the inmate could lie. After that ruling, the prosecutor sided with Moore and said that he is intellectually disabled, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals still disagreed, claiming last June
that he was eligible for execution under current medical standards as
well. Now, the high court has stepped in again, and this time, the
majority of justices made clear that Moore has shown he is disabled and
therefore ineligible for execution. The court's opinion knocked the
Texas court for relying on the same methods it had ruled against in the
2017 opinion, like focusing on Moore's strengths instead of his
weaknesses, especially strengths gained in a controlled prison
environment. The justices also said that despite the Texas court saying it had
eliminated its controversial set of factors, which the high court said
were problematic for advancing stereotypes, "it seems to have used many
of those factors in reaching its conclusion." "To be sure, the court of appeals opinion is not identical to the
opinion we considered in Moore," the justices wrote. "There are
sentences here and there suggesting other modes of analysis consistent
with what we said. But there are also sentences here and there
suggesting reliance upon what we earlier called 'lay stereotypes of the
intellectually disabled.'" Moore, 59, was sentenced to death more than 38 years ago after he
fatally shot a 73-year-old clerk during a Houston robbery in 1980. In
2014, a Texas court determined under current medical standards that
Moore was intellectually disabled — with evidence including low IQ
scores and his inability to tell time or days of the week as a teenager. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overruled that decision,
saying the lower court failed to use its test in making the
determination. The Supreme Court invalidated that method upon review. "By rejecting the habeas court’s application of medical guidance and
clinging to the standard it laid out ... the CCA failed adequately to
inform itself of the 'medical community’s diagnostic framework,'"
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the 5-3 opinion in 2017. In an unusual step, the prosecutor — Harris County District Attorney
Kim Ogg, a Democrat — filed a brief to the Texas court after that ruling
stating that she agreed with Moore that he was intellectually disabled
and should not be executed. In a surprise June opinion, the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals agreed to use current medical standards as a method
to determine if a death row inmate had an intellectual disability but
said that Moore still did not qualify. Both Moore and Ogg took the matter up with the justices in
Washington, D.C. — marking a rare occurrence of the state and inmate
arguing for the same thing. They argued that the Texas court claimed to
take up medical standards but largely did the same thing that the
Supreme Court slammed earlier. They asked the Supreme Court to reverse
the Texas court’s decision without holding a hearing, or if the justices
didn’t agree to that, at least to grant a second review with oral
arguments. The justices took the more drastic step. Moore's case will now go back to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a
new decision, but with the high court saying Moore has shown he is
intellectually disabled, he would be ineligible for execution. A difference in this ruling was a concurrence from Chief Justice John
Roberts. In 2017, he dissented against the Supreme Court's reversal of
the Texas court decision, claiming his colleagues' order on how states
should determine intellectual disability "lacked clarity." On Tuesday,
he said that problem still exists, but it's "easy to see" the Court of
Criminal Appeals missed the mark. "The court repeated the same errors that this Court previously condemned," he wrote. Among the most conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas
and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the majority opinion, saying, as Roberts
had, that the lack of clarity in how states should rule is the fault of
the Supreme Court. They also criticized the majority for its "foray
into factfinding" in making a decision on Moore's disability, as opposed
to its role of judicial review. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was left on its own in making
these decisions. The Texas judges have begged the state Legislature for
nearly two decades to come up with a process for determining whether
death penalty defendants are intellectually disabled. This year, the few
lawmakers who repeatedly file bills on the topic hope that Moore's case can make their legislation pass.
The entire story ca be read at:
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/19/bobby-moore-supreme-court-death-penalty-intellectual-disability/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1550592721&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2jGtbkkyLkoPjfrjpZqXvRGRZKrvQjIDGZqY5PFI90COvWUvq15ieuyHA
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
The entire story ca be read at:
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/19/bobby-moore-supreme-court-death-penalty-intellectual-disability/?utm_campaign=trib-social&utm_content=1550592721&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2jGtbkkyLkoPjfrjpZqXvRGRZKrvQjIDGZqY5PFI90COvWUvq15ieuyHA
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
