Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Tim Shoop, Warden v. Danny Hill (2019)
“ We held that this rule violated the Eighth Amendment because it treated an IQ score higher than 70 as conclusively disqualifying and thus prevented consideration of other evidence of intellectual disability, such as evidence of “deficits in adaptive functioning over [the defendant’s] lifetime.” ”
Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Tim Shoop, Warden v. Danny Hill (2019)
“ And we found that the CCA also went astray in “stress [ing] [petitioner’s] improved behavior in prison,” even though the medical community “caution [ed] against reliance on adaptive strengths developed in a controlled setting, as a prison surely is.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13) (internal quotation marks omitted) . III In this case, no reader of the decision of the Court of Appeals can escape the conclusion that it is heavily based on Moore, which came years after the decisions of the Ohio courts. ”
Portal:Supreme Court of the United States, Tim Shoop, Warden v. Danny Hill (2019)
“ Traverse in No. 96–CV–795 (ND Ohio) (Doc. 102) , p. 47. And so, unsurprisingly, the District Court analyzed Hill’s Atkins claim solely under §2254 (d) (2) , noting that “ [a] s Hill concedes in his Traverse, his Atkins claim is more appropriately addressed as it relates to the Ohio appellate court’s factual analysis under §2254 (d) (2) .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. Hill pressed the same §2254 (d) (2) argument in his opening brief in the Sixth Circuit. There, he argued that the state courts’ finding on “adaptive functioning... was an unreasonable determination of the facts.” ”
