Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): influences. Rather, one juror was attempting to influence the other jurors’ opinion, although it was done inappropriately before deliberations. Indeed, Mr. Mellow’s declaration states that the juror “... seemed to prey on the weaker jurors and tried to sway them.” Declaration of Mr. Mellow. Nevertheless, the influence here was internal, not from outside sources. Once the verdict was entered, the jurors, including Mr. Mellow, became incompetent to testify regarding any internal discussions or deliberations. Pa.R.E. 606(b); Carter, supra. Therefore, Appellant’s claim fails. Penalty Phase IX. Atkins Appellant raises a claim that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is unconstitutional pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Appellant did not raise this claim before the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment (B) holding that the eighth amendment to the united states constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals (C) holding that the execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the eighth amendment (D) holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person (E) holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i  16 of the tennessee constitution
Output (English): holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i  16 of the tennessee constitution