Dr. Updegrove is Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas. Dr. Vaughn is Professor at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas. He is Co-Director of the Institute for Legal Studies in Criminal Justice at Sam Houston.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2019 Dec;47(4):486-492. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.003884-19. Epub 2019 Sep 18.
This article reviews the history of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on intellectual disability in capital cases, highlighting the difficulty states have had in devising a workable definition that meets constitutional standards. The Court's decisions in (1989), (2002), and (2014) are briefly summarized. Next, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling in (2004) is discussed as a prelude to the Supreme Court's decision in (2017). On remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in a manner that resulted in finding Mr. Moore intellectually able, and therefore eligible for the death penalty, in (2018). Finally, the importance of the Supreme Court's most recent ruling on intellectual disability in capital cases, (2019), is explored in depth. The article concludes with recommendations for best practices among forensic evaluators who assess capital defendants for intellectual disability.
本文回顾了美国最高法院在死刑案件中对智力残疾的裁决历史，重点讨论了各州在制定符合宪法标准的可行定义方面所面临的困难。简要总结了法院在 (1989)、 (2002) 和 (2014) 年的裁决。接下来，讨论了德克萨斯州刑事上诉法院在 (2004) 年的裁决，作为最高法院在 (2017) 年裁决的前奏。发回重审后，德克萨斯州刑事上诉法院以一种导致发现摩尔先生具有智力能力的方式解释了最高法院在 (2017) 年的裁决，因此他有资格被判处死刑。最后，深入探讨了最高法院在死刑案件中关于智力残疾的最新裁决 (2019) 的重要性。文章最后提出了对评估死刑被告智力残疾的法医评估人员的最佳实践建议。
