Street Law Case Summary
Daryl Renard Atkins v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Argued: February 20, 2002
Decided: June 20, 2002
Background
On August 16, 1996, Daryl Renard Atkins and his friend, William Jones, were high on marijuana and
drunk. They went to a convenience store to get more beer. In the parking lot, Atkins told Jones that
he would beg for money to buy the beer. A 21-year-old man, Eric Nesbitt, from a nearby military
base soon stopped at the store. Atkins and Jones robbed the man and then took him to a field where
Atkins shot and killed him.
In February 1998, Atkins was convicted in York County, Virginia of capital murder and robbery.
The jury sentenced Atkins to death. However, due to incomplete sentencing instructions Atkins’
sentence was vacated and a second sentencing was ordered.
The second jury considered information about Atkins’ intelligence in sentencing. Both sides
presented expert testimony from clinical psychologists. The psychologist for Atkins cited his low
IQ score of 59 and his inability to function independently as evidence of Atkins’ intellectual
disability. (An IQ score of 100 is considered average in the adult population.) The state’s
psychologist disagreed, finding that Atkins’ ability to recall people and events in history along with a
sizable vocabulary as evidence that a diagnosis of intellectual disability was inaccurate. The second
jury again sentenced Atkins to death.
Atkins and his attorneys appealed his sentence to the Virginia Supreme Court. Atkins’ attorney
argued that the death penalty was too harsh of a punishment for someone with an IQ of 59. No one
with a documented IQ of 59 or less had ever been executed in Virginia. Therefore, Atkins argued
the punishment was disproportionate to sentences that were typical in Virginia and should be
considered cruel and unusual.
Virginia claimed the Atkins’ sentence was not too harsh and did not violate the “cruel and unusual”
punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Virginia cited the 1989 case of Penry v. Lynaugh (492
U.S. 302) in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the execution of people with intellectual
disabilities did not violate the Eighth Amendment because there was not a national consensus
against such executions. In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:
The public sentiment expressed in these and other polls and resolutions may ultimately find
expression in legislation, which is an objective indicator of contemporary values upon which
we can rely. But at present, there is insufficient evidence of a national consensus against
executing people with intellectual disabilities convicted of capital offenses for us to conclude
that it is categorically prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the death penalty decision of the lower courts.
Arguments for Atkins
 A national consensus has emerged in the United States against executing people with
intellectual disabilities. Many states have passed laws that prohibit the death penalty in cases
where the defendant has an intellectual disability. In 1989 the Supreme Court ruled in Penry
v. Lynaugh (492 U.S. 302) that there was not a national consensus against executing people
© 2002 Street Law, Inc.
1
Atkins v. Virginia
with intellectual disabilities. At that time, only the federal government and two states
(Maryland and Georgia) prohibited such executions. Since Penry, 16 states have passed laws
that prohibit the execution of people with intellectual disabilities and 12 states currently have
no death penalty. A total of 30 states, then, do not execute people with intellectual
disabilities.
 Atkins was found to have an IQ of 59, which makes his intelligence similar to that of an
average nine year old. Atkins’ IQ places him in the category of intellectual disability and
ranks in the bottom 2% of the adult population. The Supreme Court has ruled that
defendants 15 years old or younger cannot be given the death penalty. Someone who has the
thinking and the reasoning skills of a child should not be given the stiffest punishment. As a
society, we do not accept the execution of children and therefore, we should not accept the
execution of anyone with the mental ability of a child.
 Prisoners with intellectual disabilities face a high risk of being convicted for crimes they did
not commit. There have been cases throughout the country in which new evidence has
proven death row inmates to be innocent. An example is the case of Earl Washington.
Washington, with an IQ of 69, confessed to a rape and murder and was sentenced to death
in 1983. In 1999, DNA tests confirmed that Washington was innocent and he received a
pardon. Unfortunately it is common for offenders with intellectual disabilities to give false
confessions. This occurs because individuals with intellectual disabilities have a strong desire
to please others and may confess to please the police officers. Another characteristic of
people with intellectual disabilities is the tendency to believe something that has been
suggested to them. This suggestibility can cause offenders to remember and admit to events
that may not have occurred.
 People with intellectual disabilities should be considered as a special category of defendants
because they share common characteristics that make it difficult to participate in their own
defense. Defendants may tell their attorneys that they understand what is occurring in the
courtroom, but often they do not. Defendants with intellectual disabilities may also display
inappropriate behavior such as smiling and laughing during the trial. The jurors may
incorrectly interpret this behavior as indicative of a lack of remorse. Once convicted to
death it is very difficult for people with intellectual disabilities to initiate the proceeding for
an appeal. There are many procedures to follow and deadlines to meet to appeal a death
penalty conviction. This process is complicated for an inmate with average intelligence,
much more so for someone with an intellectual disability.
 The Supreme Court has found that the Eighth Amendment (banning cruel and unusual
punishment) contains room for interpretation based on an “evolving standard of decency."
In this case, it means that over time the citizens in the United States have changed their
beliefs on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The United States has matured as
a nation and therefore their values have changed. It is currently unconstitutional to execute
the mentally ill and children. It would be a logical next step to make it unconstitutional to
execute the people with intellectual disabilities.
 Since World War II, many nations in the international community have taken a strong stand
in opposition to the death penalty as a form of punishment. After World War II, many
countries in Europe abandoned or restricted the death penalty after signing and ratifying the
© 2002 Street Law, Inc.
2
Atkins v. Virginia
Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights
Commission passed a resolution supporting a worldwide ban on executions. More than half
of the countries in the international community have abolished the death penalty completely
or kept it only for the most extraordinary circumstances. The United States was one of
ninety countries, including China and Iran, to vote against the resolution. The European
Union has filed a brief in support of Atkins, arguing that an international consensus exists
against the executions of the people with intellectual disabilities. The United States’ position
on this issue has hurt its diplomatic relationships with many countries throughout the world.
Arguments for Virginia
 Currently, a jury makes the decision on whether an individual should be given the death
penalty. During sentencing the jury can be told that the defendant has an intellectual
disability. The jury then decides on a case by case basis if the intellectual disabilities is a
compelling reason not to give the death penalty. There are considerable differences among
people with intellectual disabilities. The jury can take those differences into account before
deciding on an appropriate sentence. Therefore, people with intellectual disabilities are given
adequate protection by the courts and the law.
 Individuals will claim they have intellectual disabilities to avoid being given the death penalty.
There is no definitive test that can be administered that will prove that someone has an
intellectual disability. Unfortunately, we cannot take a DNA sample to determine an
individual’s intelligence. The IQ test is one measure of intelligence and the ability to function
in society is another measure.
 Atkins does not have an intellectual disability. He does not have the characteristics of people
with intellectual disabilities which include limitations and impairments in functioning in
society. The American Psychiatric Association has an official manual (DSM IV) that is used
in diagnosing mental disorders, including intellectual disabilities. Dr. Samenow, the clinical
psychologist who examined Atkins for Virginia, consulted the manual and found Atkins to
be high functioning and not so impaired as to consider him a person with intellectual
disabilities. Dr. Samenow attested to Atkins ability to remember when John F. Kennedy was
President and also the recipe for cooking chicken as examples of high functioning. Atkins
does not have intellectual disabilities; he simply lacks the motivation to succeed in life. Also,
the DSM IV clearly states that a diagnosis for intellectual disabilities must occur before an
individual turns 18. Atkins was not diagnosed until he was an adult in preparation for his
trial.
 It is too early to determine if a national consensus has emerged against the execution of a
person with intellectual disabilities. The average length of time that the 16 states have had
their laws banning the execution of people with intellectual disabilities is five years. Five
years is not a significant amount of time to determine if the laws are truly reflective of a
change in the values of society. Also, in a number of the states the law only pertains to those
individuals who commit a crime after the date the bill was signed into law. In those states the
people with intellectual disabilities can be executed if they were in the criminal justice system
when the law passed.
© 2002 Street Law, Inc.
3
Atkins v. Virginia
 The Court cannot go back and reverse the decision once it has been made. States will not be
able to pass legislation executing people with intellectual disabilities because the Court has
prohibited it. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to prove that the national consensus
has changed again. It is very serious for the Supreme Court to find a new consensus because
the Court is saying that the Constitution means something different than it did before.
 There is nothing wrong with executing people with intellectual disabilities. People with
intellectual disabilities understand the difference between right and wrong. They know that if
they commit a crime there is a punishment for that crime. People with intellectual disabilities
are competent to stand trial and they are able to assist in their own defense. In some cases a
defendant’s intellectual disabilities may make the individual less accountable for their actions.
In those cases the jury can decide to give a lighter sentence. The jury has the ability to decide
a sentence and take into account important facts about the defendant. This should be done
on a case by case basis. There are crimes so horrible that a death sentence is warranted even
if the defendant has an intellectual disability. In some instances, society is in danger if the
defendant is ever released from prison.
Decision
On March 26, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case) and ordered
oral arguments in the case of Atkins v. Virginia. During oral argument the justices seemed concerned
about whether or not a “national consensus” has emerged in the last 12 years to justify banning the
execution of people with intellectual disabilities. The attorney for Atkins argued that the “national
consensus” is evident in the fact that 18 states and the Federal government now have laws banning
the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Another twelve states have no death penalty.
Thirty states, then, do not allow the execution of people with intellectual disabilities.
Virginia argues that not enough time has elapsed since Penry v. Lynaugh to overturn the decision. The
average length of time that the states have had the new laws banning the execution of people with
intellectual disabilities is five years. Virginia also argues that of the 18 states that passed the laws,
many can still execute people with intellectual disabilities if the offense date was before the law was
passed.
© 2002 Street Law, Inc.
4