Bobby Wayne Woods abducted a nine-year-old boy and his eleven-year-old sister from their home in the middle of the night. First, he engaged in sexual activity with the girl, then he abducted the kids. He drove the kids to a remotely located cemetary where he severely beat and choked the boy, leaving him for dead. Then, he drove the girl to another location where he cut her throat almost all the way around. She died.
At his death penalty trial, Woods put on evidence that he was mentally retarded as a mitigating circumstance even though this was pre-
Atkins. The testifying defense expert opined that Woods was mentally retarded based upon a report prepared by a non-testifying defense expert who came to the conclusion that Woods, of borderline intelligence, was not mentally retarded because of his adaptive skills. Woods was sentenced to death.
After the Supreme Court decided
Atkins, the CCA remanded the case back on a subsequent writ of habeas corpus for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation. Schmitt, the defense expert appointed for this hearing assessed Woods as mentally retarded. The IQ score came in at 68 after Schmitt adjusted the test for the Flynn effect, but the potential deviation of five points either way gave Woods an IQ range of 63 to 73. However, the adaptive functioning test (based on information from his grandmother) showed that Woods was functioning at or near his age level of 38 in every category and scale except a scale measuring money and value. Schmitt also testified that Woods had deficits in functional academic skills and work, sufficient for Woods to be classified as mentally retarded. He also criticized the previous, non-testifying expert's approach to examining Woods because he used a "half-full" approach instead of a "half-empty" approach. In other words, Schmitt believed that
Atkins requires to a psychologist to look at a defendant's deficits rather than his attributes. Schmitt admitted on cross examination that someone could look at these same tests and come to the conclusion that Woods was not mentally retarded.
And, lest we forget, Woods worked as a short-order cook and had held several jobs in food prepartion including one at Waffle House. It's not quite the
fast-food lynchpin of mental retardation, but it is in the food service industry. Schmitt testified that this was in keeping with someone who was mildly retarded, but on cross-examination he admitted this job took some level of skill and organization and thinking.
The prison psychologist testified that Woods' full scale IQ was 83. He noted that Woods didn't have a history of mental health treatment and it would be unusual for someone to pop up at age 32 as mentally retarded. The State's expert from the trial testified that he thought Woods functioned well as a short-order cook and that he disagreed with Schmitt's opinion that Woods was deficient in work and functional academic skills.
The trial court rejected Woods'
Atkins claim. Then, the feds rejected Woods'
Atkins claim after he litigated it there. Two days before his scheduled execution (and about 30 pages into a 44 page opinion) Woods filed a subsequent writ presenting the same
Atkins claim, but with additional evidence. Not "new" evidence, just additional evidence that required Woods to show by clear and convincing evidence that no rational juror would ahve answered in the state' favor one or more of the special issues that were submitted to the jury in Woods' trial. Under
Ex parte Blue, the additional evidence had to demonstrate, clearly and convincingly, that no rational finder of fact would fail to find Woods was mentally retarded." The new evidence? Another psychologist's opinion based upon unconsidered affidavits from family members, childhood friends, and co-workers an a previously unconsidered IQ test. [Of course, the affidavit notes that even mentally retarded people can be short-order cooks.]
Judge Hervey, writing for the majority
held that the additional evidence did not compellingly or dramatically undermine the substantial evidence that supported a finding that Woods was not mentally retarded. Even applying the Flynn effect, a rational fact finder could find the high, non-retarded edge of Woods' IQ score more compelling. Additionally, Woods testified skillfully in his defense at his trial that his cousin (who had died before trial) committed the capital murder. Woods admitted in his trial that he couldn't read some words, but denied claiming that he could not read. While the new expert viewed the fact that Woods had checked out 115 books from the prison library a "cloak of competence", a rational factfinder could have believed he actually read those books. Consequently, the Court dismissed Woods' subsequent writ.
Presiding Judge Keller
concurred,
as she did in Ex parte Blue, that
Blue was a bad idea to begin with and this lengthy opinion was a prime example of the time and effort that results in addressing such meritless claims out of reliance upon
Blue.
Blue had held that someone could raise a mental retardation claim in a subsequent writ even though they had the opportunity to do so post-
Atkins and chose not to. According to the concurrence, this opinion takes the next step in allowing reconsideration of a meritless claim that had already been litigated just because the defendant finds another relative or another expert who is willing to suggest that the applicant has some form of mental deficiency.
[And really Presiding Judge Keller's opinion gives a quick understanding of what this case was about and why it was probably ultimately published. The issue was whether a defendant who fully litigated his mental retardation claim could re-litigate the same claim in a subsequent writ by getting another expert opinion that basically said the same thing that the previous expert had said. Of course, Judge Hervey's diligence (and patience) in going through the claim with in fine detail deserves some credit for transparency. These moments rarely get acknowledged, so, I'm acknowledging it. That said, I totally feel Presiding Judge Keller's lament that this was exhausting to go through for an ultimately meritless claim.]
Here's a link to the CCA
case info, and here's a link to the
oral argument. However, there's no underlying opinion I can link you to because it's a death penalty case.
