A good law emerges from bad court case

Legal scholars have long suggested that hard cases make bad law. With the case of Daryl R. Atkins it might be said a bad case made good law. Atkins’ journey through the criminal court system is nothing less than remarkable.

Atkins gained national notoriety in 2002 when his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the execution of the mentally retarded. It all began with the tragic murder of Eric Nesbitt. In August 1996 Atkins, along with an accomplice, forced their way into Nesbitt’s car. They robbed his money and shot him eight times.

In Virginia, where the murder occurred, only the shooter can be sentenced to death. At trial, Atkins’ accomplice implicated him as the shooter. The defense failed to present evidence that Atkins was mentally retarded. Prior to trial an expert determined that Atkins had an IQ of 59 with the cognitive ability of a child between 9 and 12 years of age. He was convicted and sentenced to death.

Atkins appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cited an error in the jury instructions and remanded the case for re-sentencing. A second jury heard evidence of Atkins’ mental retardation. He was again sentenced to death. Atkins sat on death row while his appeal made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Standards of decency

In the summer of 2002, in the case of Atkins vs. Virginia the U.S. Supreme Court ended capital punishment for the mentally retarded. The decision overruled the high court’s prior decision in Penry vs. Lynaugh that held executing the mentally retarded was not cruel and unusual punishment. In Atkins v. Virginia the court cited “evolving standards of decency.” Historically, the Supreme Court utilized a four-pronged analysis in determining evolving standards of decency. The court considered recent state legislative enactments, the position of nationwide organizations, sentencing data and the court’s own analysis.

During the 13 years prior to the Atkins decision, 30 states barred the execution of the mentally retarded. As a result, the court found that “today our society views mentally retarded offenders as categorically less culpable than the average criminal.”

The decision in Atkins had some shortcomings. Most notably the court did not define mental retardation. Identifying mental retardation is exceedingly difficult for a variety of reasons. The court left the job of defining mental retardation up to individual states. Left to their own devices, the states implemented a potpourri of procedures with regard to the mentally retarded. The problem was no more evident than in Virginia.

Bizarre turn

Atkins’ case was sent back to Virginia for further review. It was here that his case took its first bizarre turn. Virginia now had a law that defined mental retardation as having an IQ below 70. In August of 2005, a third jury found that Atkins was not mentally retarded and sent him back to death row. Although, the Atkins decision resulted in the commutation of hundreds of death sentences, Atkins himself would not benefit by the decision.

In 2006, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned Atkins’ death sentence for a third time. The Virginia high court declared that the third jury should not have been told that a prior jury sentenced Atkins to death.

As Atkins’ lawyers prepared for a fourth sentence hearing the case took a second bizarre twist. A lawyer who represented Atkins’ accomplice came forward after 10 years and informed the court that his client’s testimony at Atkins’ trial was manipulated by the prosecution. Attorney Leslie P. Smith contended he was barred by an ethical responsibility to his client not to divulge the misconduct.

Smith originally sought the advice of the Virginia Bar Association in 1998. He was advised that his first responsibility was to his client and any disclosure could jeopardize his client and his own license to practice law. Smith recently asked the bar association to reconsider the matter and he was advised to inform the court of the alleged misconduct.

As a result, Atkins’ death sentence was commuted to life in prison. Ironically, not because of the landmark Supreme Court decision that bears his name, but because of the prosecutorial misconduct that landed him on death row in the first place.

X Matthew T. Mangino is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and a feature columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. He can be reached at matthewmangino@aol.com