(WDNews) — Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court this week as the state sought to reinstate the death sentence of a man convicted in a 1997 murder, arguing that federal judges improperly broadened the legal definition of intellectual disability in capital cases.
The justices heard arguments in Hamm v. Smith, which centers on the conviction of Joseph Clifton Smith for the killing of 50-year-old Durk Van Dam in Covington County. Prosecutors say Smith and an accomplice lured Van Dam to a remote wooded area two days after Smith was released on work release, then beat him to death with a hammer and saw. Van Dam suffered 35 blunt-force injuries, rib fractures, brain swelling, a collapsed lung and deep saw marks, according to the state. Smith confessed to the robbery and murder and was sentenced to death.
Smith later argued he could not be executed because he is intellectually disabled — a category protected from capital punishment under the Supreme Court’s 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruling. Alabama uses a three-part test to determine intellectual disability: an IQ of 70 or below, significant adaptive functioning deficits and onset of the disability in childhood. The burden of proof lies with the offender.
Smith has undergone five IQ tests, with scores ranging from 72 to 78, above the state’s cutoff. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one lower-end score, when adjusted for a margin of error, could be treated as equivalent to 70, granting Smith relief. Alabama appealed, saying the ruling improperly dismissed the cumulative evidence.
During Wednesday’s argument, Alabama Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing told the court the lower court’s analysis “ignores statistical reality” and that intellectual disability determinations must reflect “actual evidence,” including multiple test scores. He said Smith failed to meet the burden required under state law.
Marshall said Alabama made a “strong case” in defense of the sentence.
“Facts — not ideology — must continue to guide constitutional law,” Marshall said in a statement. “Five independent IQ tests placed him well above the legal threshold, and no amount of judicial creativity can change that.”
Marshall also praised Overing’s performance before the court, saying his arguments underscored Alabama’s position that its capital punishment system is constitutional and consistent with long-standing standards.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to have implications beyond Smith’s case, potentially affecting how states nationwide assess intellectual disability claims in capital proceedings.
