Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Hamm v. Smith to defend the state’s enforcement of capital punishment. The case involves Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted for the 1997 murder of Durk Van Dam. According to court records, Smith and an accomplice killed Van Dam two days after Smith’s release from a work-release program.
Smith argued that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed under the precedent set by Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, which prohibits executing individuals with intellectual disabilities. Alabama uses a three-part test to determine intellectual disability: significantly subaverage intellectual functioning as shown by an IQ of 70 or below, substantial deficits in adaptive functioning, and onset during childhood. The burden of proof lies with the offender.
Smith underwent five IQ tests, scoring between 72 and 78 on each—above the threshold required to establish intellectual disability. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court focused on one score close to 70 and granted relief based on assumptions about testing margins of error rather than considering all scores together.
During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Alabama’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General Robert Overing stated that Smith’s defense did not align with statistical evidence and stressed that determinations should reflect actual data from multiple tests.
Attorney General Marshall commented: “Today, we defended Alabama’s lawful sentence and the basic principle that facts – not ideology – must continue to guide constitutional law. Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled. Five independent IQ tests placed him well above the legal threshold, and no amount of judicial creativity can change that,” stated Attorney General Marshall. “The Eleventh Circuit’s approach would require states to ignore clear evidence to indulge hypotheticals designed to delay a convicted capital murderer from accountability after 27 years. The people of Alabama have the right to enforce the punishment chosen by their laws and juries, and our team has presented a strong case before the Justices to hold the line against criminals who have committed heinous murders.”
He also praised his colleague: “I am extraordinarily proud of Principal Deputy Solicitor General Bob Overing for the clarity and conviction he brought to the Court today. His arguments made unmistakably clear that Alabama’s capital punishment system is both lawful and essential to the enforcement of justice. Because of his work, the Court now has before it a rigorous defense of the State’s authority to enforce capital sentences without being undermined by shifting and unscientific standards—standards that have nothing to do with the Constitution. The stakes extend far beyond this case, and his exceptional arguments ensure that Alabama and our sister States can continue to uphold criminal justice and the rule of law for all Americans.”
The Supreme Court will decide whether Alabama’s standards for determining intellectual disability meet constitutional requirements in death penalty cases.
