Hall v. Florida

5 Citing briefs

  1. LEWIS

    Non-Title Respondent, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Supplemental Brief

    Filed July 20, 2015

    Petitioner’s argument inappropriately “takes an IQ score as final and conclusive evidence of a defendant’s intellectual capacity, whenexpertsin the field would consider other evidence.” (Hall, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 1995.) A person’s IQ score aloneis neversufficient to determine mental retardation.

  2. PEOPLE v. POWELL

    Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

    Filed May 15, 2018

    The consensus of medical professionals is also relevant to Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. (See Hall, supra, 134 S.Ct. at p. 2000.) Setting 18 years as the line for who is mature enough for the death penalty, regardless of other factors affecting a person’s neurodevelopment, makes little scientific sense.

  3. PEOPLE v. RICES

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed September 22, 2016

    115 Significantly, in evaluating this evidentiary rule under the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court applied the identical approachit had employed in Roper-- looking to see if this rule was consistent with a national consensus. (134 S.Ct. at pp. 1996-1998.) Because the Florida evidentiary rule wasnot consistent with the national consensus,it violated the Eighth Amendment.

  4. The People, Respondent,v.Otis Boone, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 17, 2017

    See, e.g., People v. Thomas, 8 N.E.3d 308 (N.Y. 2014); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). These briefs have been cited frequently by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. See, e.g., Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986, 1994-1995, 2000-2001 (2014); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 962 (2007); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 316 n.21 (2002). Several of APA’s amicus briefs addressed eyewitness-identification issues.

  5. Inniss et al v. Aderhold et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 42 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint

    Filed September 5, 2014

    As the Supreme Court reaffirmed this term: “States are laboratories for experimentation, but those experiments may not deny the basic dignity the Constitution protects.” Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986, 2001 (2014). The Constitution “undoubtedly imposes constraints on the State’s power to control the selection of one’s spouse.”