Smith v. Dretke, Tennard v. Dretke (Consolidated)
After his state court conviction of capital murder was upheld on appeal, Smith petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus. The district court granted the petition in part, on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unconstitutional jury instruction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding in relevant part that the state court was not required to give a special instruction to the jury allowing it to consider Smith’s background as a mitigating circumstances, as required by Penry v. Johnson, because the evidence of mental retardation did not demonstrate that Smith suffered from a "uniquely severe permanent handicap" and that his criminal act was attributable to this condition.
Question Presented:
Did the Court of Appeals misapply Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) by imposing a requirement that evidence demonstrate a "uniquely severe permanent handicap" in order for a Texas
capital murder defendant to claim that a "nullification" instruction was improper?
Tennard v. Dretke
Tennard was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. At trial, Tennard had introduced evidence that he had an I.Q. score of 67. His conviction and sentence were affirmed and his application for state habeas relief was denied. Subsequently, Tennard filed a federal habeas petition in district court, which denied his petition and his request for a Certificate of Appealability. Tennard appealed, contending that the jury was unable to give effect to the mitigating evidence of his mental retardation at the punishment phase of his trial. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal, holding that a petitioner must show a nexus between his severe permanent condition (alleged mental retardation, shown by an I.Q. score of 67) and the capital murder, and that Tennard failed to introduce at trial any evidence indicating that the capital murder was caused by his I.Q. of 67.
Question Presented:
Does the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which found the death penalty for mentally retarded persons unconstitutional, apply if the crime cannot be attributed to mental
retardation?
