# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 37 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Pau l T. Goo dwi n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.
Troy Steel e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 37 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Pau l T. Goo dwi n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Troy Steel e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Decem be r 8, 2 01 4 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 9, 2 01 4 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Pau l Goo dwi n, who is sc he du le d to be ex ecu te d on Decem be r 10
, 20 14
, ha s f i l e d a n a p pl ic at io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y wit h res pe ct to hi s Eig ht h
Am en dm en t cl ai m

of i nt el le ct ua l di sa bi li ty. In t he alt ern at iv e, Goo dwi n h as fil ed a

m ot io n for aut ho riz at io n to fil e a se co nd or su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n. In bo th of th es e fil in gs , Goo dwi n cl ai m s th at he is in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed an d th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri is su ed a de ci si on th at was co nt rary to th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t’s
de ci si on in Hal l v. Flo ri da
, 13 4 S. Ct

. 19 86 (2 01 4)

. W e de ny Goo dwi n’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y an d de ny hi s m ot io n fo r au th or iz at io n to fil e a se co nd

or su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n. We als o d en y Goo dwi n’s re la te d m ot io ns for st ay

.

Goo dwi n was co nv ic te d of fir st -d eg ree m ur de r an d se nt en ced to de at h, an d th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri affi rm ed hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. St at e v. Goo dw in
, 43 S.W .3d 80 5, 80 9 (Mo

. 20 01 ). A st at e m ot io n co ur t de ni ed Goo dwi n’s req ue st fo r
po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, an d t h e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri affi rm ed

. Goo dw in v. St at e , 19 1 S.W .3d 20
, 23 (Mo

. 20 06 ). In reject in g Goo dwi n’s arg um en t th at he

es ta bl is he d si gn ifi can tl y su b- av erag e in te ll ect ua l fu nc t io ni ng , th e co ur t no te d th at

“ Goo dwi n ha s ei gh t in de pe nd en t in te ll ig en ce te st s sp read ov er twen t y ye a r s th at in di cat ed th at Goo dwi n is no t ret ard ed .” Id

. at 30

. Bas ed up on th is reco rd
, th e co ur t

co nc lu de d th at Goo dwi n’s si ng le IQ sc o re wit hi n th e fiv e-p oi nt m arg in of erro r fo r th e W ech sl er s cal e o f su b- av erag e in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g was “ in ad eq ua te to rai se

a tri ab le i s s u e o f fact .” Id

. at 30 -3 1. Goo dwi n th erea fte r fil ed a pe ti ti on un de r 28

-2

-U.S.C. § 22 54
, rai si ng nu m ero us cl ai m s. As Goo dwi n no w ad m it s, he as se rte d in on e

of th es e cl ai m s th at he was in te ll ect u al ly di sa bl ed
, ren de rin g hi s ex ecu ti on

u n co ns ti tu ti on al un de r Atki ns v. Vir gi ni a , 53 6 U.S. 30 4 (2 00 2)

. The di st ri c t c o u r t de ni ed rel ie f on t h i s c l a i m an d de cl in ed to is su e a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

. Se e Goo dw in v. Rop er , No. 4 :0 6C V84 8, 20 09 W L 32 28 69 6, at * 21 , 26 (E.D. Mo. Se pt

. 30 , 20 09 ).

Sh or tl y aft er hi s da te of ex ecu ti on was se t, Goo dwi n fil ed a m ot io n to reca ll th e

m an da te in th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri, arg ui ng th at it s earl ie r de ci si on co nf li ct s wit h t h e S u p r e me Co ur t’s de ci si on in Hal l

. Afte r th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri

ov erru le d th is m ot i o n , G o o d w in rai se d th is cl ai m be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t in a

su pp le m en ta l pe ti ti on fo r a writ o f h a b e a s co rp us

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at
Go o d w in ’s Hal l cl ai m is ba rred by 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(1 ) an d al so co nc lu de d th at it fai ls on th e m eri ts

. The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to gr an t a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y , pr om pt in g Goo dwi n to fil e an ap pl ic at io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y an d a

m ot io n fo r au th or iz at io n t o fi le a se co nd or s uc ces si ve ap pl ic at io n.

W e st at e ou r co nc l u s i o n s br ie fly be cau se of th e ex ig en cy of ti m e. W e fir st

co nc lu de th at juri st s of reas on wou ld no t fin d de ba ta bl e th e co rrec tn es s of th e di st ric t

co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at Goo dwi n’s cl ai m is ba rred by 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(1 ). Se e Sl ac k v. McDa ni el
, 52 9 U.S. 47 3, 47 8 (2 00 0)

. Thi s pr ov is io n pr ov id es th at “ [a] cl ai m
pr es en te d in a se co nd or su cces si ve ha be as co rp us ap pl ic at io n un de r se ct io n 22 54 th at

was pr es en te d in a pr io r ap pl ic at io n sh al l be di smi ss ed .” § 22 44 (b )(1 ). Goo dwi n

co nc ed es in hi s ap pl ic at io n th at “ [i]n hi s ori gi na l hab eas pr oc eed in g, [he] rai se d th e cl ai m th at he is m en ta ll y ret ard ed an d i n e l i g i bl e fo r ex ecu ti on un de r [s ic ] Adk in s .”
In pa rti cu la r, in Grou nd “ I” of hi s in it ia l ha be as ap pl ic at io n, Go od win ass ert ed th at

“ [t]he Eig ht h Am en dm en t pr ecl ud es th e ex ecu ti on of th e m en ta ll y ret ard ed ” an d th at

“ c l e ar an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce ex is ts th at [Go od win ] is m en ta ll y ret ard ed .”
Goo dwi n se ek s to di st in gu is h th is cl ai m fro m hi s cu rren t cl ai m , arg ui ng on ly th at th e la tt er cl ai m is pr em is ed on Hal l
, no t Atki ns , an d as se rti ng th at th is di ffer en ce m at te rs

.

- 3 -Thi s arg um en t ru ns he ad lo ng in to ou r de ci si on in Th omp so n v. Ni xo n , 27 2 F.3 d 10 98 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). The re, th e pe ti ti on er fil ed a m ot io n to reca ll th e m an da te an d cl ai m ed
th at a rece nt Su pr em e Co ur t de ci s io n al lo wed hi m to bypas s th e li m it on se co nd or

su cces si ve ap pl ic at io ns se t fo rth in § 22 44 (b )(1 ). Id

. at 10 99

. W e reject ed th is
read in g of § 22 44 (b )(1 ), co nc lu di ng th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on rel ie d up on by
th e pe ti ti on er “ si m

pl y pr ov id es a n e w arg um en t (th e m eri ts of whi ch we ne ed no t

ex pl or e) in su pp or t o f th e sa m e [co ns ti tu ti on al ] cl ai m th at ha s bee n pre se nt ed twi ce be fo re.” Id

. at 11 01

. Und er Th o m p s on , juri st s of reas on can no t de ba te th e

co rrec tn es s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu s io n th at Goo dwi n’s in te ll ect ua l-d is ab il it y cl ai m was pr es en te d in a pr io r ap pl ic at io n an d th eref or e ba rred un de r § 22 44 (b )(1 ). 1

Seco nd
, ev en if th is pr op os it io n were reas on ab ly de ba ta bl e, Goo dwi n was

re q u i r e d to req ue st au th or iz at io n fro m us be fo re pu rs ui ng a se co nd or su cces si ve ha be as ap pl ic a t i o n u nd er § 22 44 (b )(2 ). Se e 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(3 )(A) (“ Befo re a

se co nd or su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n pe rm it te d by th is se ct io n is fil ed in th e di st ric t co ur t, th e ap pl ic an t sh al l mov e in th e ap pr op ria te co ur t of ap pe al s fo r an or de r au th or iz in g th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er th e ap pl ic at io n.” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Bec au se Goo dwi n di d no t ta ke th is st at ut or il y req ui red st ep be fo re fil in g hi s su pp le m en ta l pe ti ti on , juri st s of reas on ca n no t de ba te th e co rrec tn es s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of
Goo dwi n’s s up pl em en ta l p et it io n.

W e al so reject Goo dwi n’s arg um en t th at hi s Hal l cl ai m was no t “ rip e” un ti l 1 th e Su pr em e Co ur t is su ed it s de ci si on in Hal l

. Fo r th is pr op os it io n, Goo dwi n rel ie s

on St ewa rt

v. Mar ti ne

z- Vil la re al
, 52 3 U.S. 63 7 (1 99 8)
, Pan et ti v. Qua rt er man , 55 1 U.S. 93 0 (2 00 7)
, an d Mag wo od v. Pat te rs on , 56 1 U.S. 32 0 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. S t ewa rt an d Pan et ti co nc ern ed co m

pe te nc y cl ai m s bro ug ht un de r For d v . W ai nw ri gh t , 47 7 U.S. 39 9 (1 98 6) , th at di d n ot be co m e ri pe for fed eral rev ie w un ti l th e St at e es ta bl is he d a da te of ex ecu ti on

. St ewa rt , 52 3 U.S. at 64 3; Pa n e t t i
, 55 1 U.S. at 94 7. Goo dwi n’s Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m , by co nt ras t, rip en ed lo ng ag o. Nor do es Mag wo od su pp or t Goo dwi n’s rip en es s arg um en t, fo r th e pe ti ti on er th ere, un li ke Goo dwi n he re, was ch al le ng in g a ne w jud gm en t fo ll owi ng th e gr an t of ha be as rel ie f. Se e Mag wo od
, 56 1 U.S. at 3 26 -2 8.

- 4 -Thi s br in gs us t o G o o d win ’s m ot io n fo r au th or iz at io n to fil e a se co nd or

su cces si ve ha be as ap pl ic at io n. 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(3 )(C) pr es cri be s th at we m ay

au th or iz e th e f

i l i n g of su ch an ap pl ic at io n “ on ly if [we] de te rm in e[] th at th e
ap pl ic at io n m ak es a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at th e a p p l i cat io n sa ti sf ie s th e
req ui rem en ts of th is su bs ect io n.” In hi s m ot io n fo r au th or iz at io n, Goo dwi n co nt en ds
th at hi s i n t el le ct ua l-d is ab il it y cl ai m is pe rm it te d by § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A)— na m el y , th at th e cl ai m “ was no t pr es en te d in a pr io r ap pl ic at io n” an d “ th e ap pl ic an t sh ows th at th e cl ai m rel ie s o n a n e w ru le of co ns ti tu ti on al la w, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on

co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Su pr em e Co ur t, th at was pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e.” Eve n

a s s u mi ng Goo dwi n’s pr es en t cl ai m was no t pr es en te d in a pr io r ap pl ic at io n, we

co nc lu de th at Goo dwi n ha s no t m ad e th is pr im a faci e sh owi ng

. In Tyl er v. Ca in
, 53 3
U.S. 6 56 (2 00 1) , t he Su pr em e Co ur t in te rp ret ed § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A) to co nc lu de th at a

ne w ru le is no t “ m ad e ret ro act iv e” un le ss th e Su pr em e Co ur t ho ld s it to be ret ro act iv e. Id

. at 66 3. Und er Tyl er , it is no t en ou gh fo r th e Su pr em e Co ur t m erel y to “ es ta bl is h[ ]

pr in ci pl es of ret ro act iv it y an d le av e[] th e ap pl ic at io n of th os e pr in ci pl es to lo wer

co ur ts .” Id

. Ju st ic e O’ Co nn or , who pr ov id ed th e de ci si ve fif th vo te in Tyl er , fu rth er

ex pl ai ne d th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t can “ ‘m a[ k ]e’ a ne w ru le ret ro act iv e th ro ug h

m ul ti pl e ho ld in gs th at lo gi cal ly di ct at e th e ret ro act iv it y of th e ne w ru le .” Id

. at 66 8 (O’Con no r, J., co nc ur rin g)

.

Und er Tyl er , Goo dwi n has no t m ad e a p rima facie sh owi ng th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at Hal l is ret ro act iv e. The Elev en th Ci rcu it rece nt ly reac he d an id en ti cal co nc lu si on

. Se e In re Hen ry , 75 7 F.3 d 11 51
, 11 53 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 14 ) (d en y in g

m ot io n fo r au th or iz at ion to fi le se co nd or su cces si ve ap pl ic at io n “ be cau se [p et it io ne r]

can no t ci rcu m

na vi ga te th e st rin ge nt req ui rem en ts fo r le av e to fil e a se co nd or

su cces si ve pe ti ti on fo un d in § 22 44 (b )”). As th e Hen ry co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ Hal l m ad e

no m en ti on of ret ro act iv it y

. Nor ha s an y su bs eq ue nt Su pr em e Co ur t cas e ad dr es se d
th e is su e, m

uc h le ss m ad e Hal l ret r o a c t i v e .” Id

. at 11 59

. The di ss en t at te m pt s to

ov erco m e th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s to ta l si le nc e on th e ret ro act iv it y of Hal l by rel y in g on th e Co ur t’s ot he r cas e la w in di cat in g th at a su bs ta nt iv e ru le m ay be ap pl ie d

- 5 -ret ro act iv el y

. The di ss en t ch arac t e r i z e s H al l as a su bs ta nt iv e ru le th at al te red th e

“ cl as s of pe rs on s th at th e la w p un is he s.” In fr a at 8 ( q u o ti ng Sc hr ir o v. Su mmerl in
, 54 2 U.S. 34 8, 35 3 (2 00 4) ). Bu t “ Hal l m erel y pr ov id es ne w pr oc ed ur es fo r en su rin g th at St at es do no t ex ecu te m em be rs of an al read y pr ot ect ed gr ou p.” Hen ry , 75 7 F.3 d

at 11 61

. In de ed
, th e di ss en t un de rs ta nd s Hal l to ho ld th at “ de fen da nt s wit h IQ sc or es ab ov e 7 0 i n F lo rid a may be co ns id ered in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed un de r Atki ns .” In fr a
at 8 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Rat he r th an an no un ce a su bs ta nt iv e ru le
, Hal l “ crea te d a
pr oc ed ur al req ui r e men t th at th os e wit h IQ te st sc or es wit hi n th e te st ’s st an da rd of

erro r wou ld ha ve th e op

po rt un it y to ot he rwis e sh ow in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty.” Hen ry , 75 7 F.3 d at 11 61 (em

ph as is in or ig in al ). Thi s co nc lu si on is bo rn e ou t by th e la ng ua ge of Hal l it se lf: “ [W] he n a de fen da nt ’s IQ te st sc or e fal l s wit hi n th e te st ’s
ack no wled ge d an d in he ren t m arg in of erro r, th e de fen da nt mus t be ab le to pr es en t ad di ti on al evi de nc e of in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty , in cl ud in g te st im on y reg ard in g ad ap ti ve be ne fit s.” 1 34 S. Ct. at 20 01 (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Fo r th es e r e a s o n s , we de ny Goo dwi n’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of

ap pe al ab il it y an d de ny hi s m ot io n fo r au th or iz at io n to fil e a se co nd or su cces si ve ha be as ap pl ic at io n. W e al so de ny Goo dwi n’s rel at ed m ot io ns fo r st ay of ex ecu ti on

.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng in pa rt a nd di ss en ti ng in pa rt.

Pa u l Goo dwi n, who is sc he du le d to be ex ecu te d on Decem be r 10
, 20 14
, ha s fil ed a m ot io n fo r au th or iz at io n to fil e a se co nd or su cces si ve ha be as ap pl ic at io n. He
cl ai m s th at th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t is su ed a de ci si on th at was co nt rary t o Hall

v. Fl or id a, 13 4 S. Ct

. 1 9 8 6 (2 01 4)
, whe n it de cl in ed to co ns id er hi s ad ap ti ve fu nc ti on i n g d e s p i t e th e fact th at he pr es en te d ev id en ce of an IQ sc or e of 72

. See
Goo dwi n v. St at e, 19 1 S.W .3d 20
, 30 –3 1 (Mo

. ba nc 20 06 ). W hi le ack no wled gi ng th e IQ sc or e of 72 to be wit hi n th e fiv e po in t m arg i n o f e r r o r f o r th e W ech sl er sc al e of

su ba ve rag e in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g, th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t no ne th el es s ch arac te riz ed th at sco re as "i na de qu at e to rai se a tr ia bl e is su e o f fac t." Id.

- 6 -The pa ne l m ajor it y co nc lu de s th at Hall is no t ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral

rev ie w an d th at Goo dwi n's pe ti ti on is ba rred as se co nd or su cces si ve un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 44

. I co nc ur in th e pa ne l's de ni a l o f G oo dwi n's ap pl ic at io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of

a pp eal ab il it y

. I di ss en t fro m th e pa ne l's de ni al of th e au th or iz at io n to fil e a se c o n d

or su cces si ve ha be as ap pl ic at io n be cau se Goo dwi n ha s m ad e "a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at th e ap pl ic at io n sat is fie s t he req ui rem en ts " o f § 22 44
, na m el y th at hi s seco nd or

su cces si ve ha be as pe ti ti on rel ie s "o n a ne w ru le of co ns t i t u t i o n al la w, m ad e
ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Su pr em e Co ur t, t ha t was pr ev io us ly

un av ai la bl e." Id . at § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A).

In he r co nt ro ll in g co nc ur rin g op in io n in Ty le r v. Cai n Ju st ic e O'Co nn or

reas on ed th at th e Co ur t can m ak e "a new rul e ret ro act iv e th ro ug h m ul ti pl e ho ld in gs th a t l og ic al ly di ct at e th e ret ro act iv it y of th e ne w ru le ." 53 3 U.S. 65 6, 66 9 (2 00 1)

. And in Pen ry v Ly

na ug h th e Co ur t ex pr es sl y st at ed th at "i f [it ] he ld
, as a su bs ta nt iv e

m at te r, th at th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t pr oh i b i t s t h e ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard ed

pe rs on s

. . . r eg ard le ss of th e pr oc ed ur es fo ll owe d
, s u c h a ru le wou ld fal l un de r th e fir st ex cep ti on to th e ge ne r a l r u l e of no nr et ro act iv it y an d wou ld be ap pl ic ab le to de fen da nt s on co ll at eral rev ie w." 49 2 U.S. 30 2, 33 0 (1 98 9)
, ab ro ga te d on ot he r
gr ou nd s b y

Atk in s, 5 36 U.S. at 3 07

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t he ld in Atk in s v. Virg in ia
, t h a t t h e Eig ht h Am en dm en t

pr oh ib it s a st at e fro m ta ki ng th e li fe of a m en ta ll y ret a r d e d o f f en de r. 53 6 U.S. 3 04
, 32 1 (2 00 2) . The Co ur t n ot ed th at "an IQ be twee n 7 0 a nd 75 or l owe r" i s "typic al ly

co ns id ered th e cu to ff IQ sc or e fo r th e in te l l e c t u a l fu nc ti on pr on g of th e m en ta l

ret ard at io n d efi ni ti on ." Id . at 3 09 n.5

.

The n in Hall
, th e Co ur t he ld un co ns ti tu ti on al a Fl or id a la w th at , as in te rp ret ed by th at st at e's su pr em e co ur t, req ui red a de fen da nt to sh ow an IQ sc or e of 70 or lo wer b efo re pr es en ti ng ad di ti on al ev id en ce of in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty. 13 4 S. Ct

. a t 1 9 9 2

. The Co ur t he ld th at "wh en a de fe n d a nt 's IQ te st sc or e fal ls wit hi n th e te st 's

- 7 -ack no wled ge d an d in he ren t m arg i n o f e r ro r, th e de fen da nt m us t be ab le to pr es en t ad di ti on al ev id en ce of in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ty, in cl ud in g te st im on y reg ard in g ad ap ti ve de fic it s." Id.

The ne w ru le th e Su pr em e Co ur t an no un ced in Hall is su bs ta nt iv e in na tu re an d
th eref or e ap pl ie s ret ro act iv el y

. Und er Atk in s, de fen da nt s wit h IQ sc or es ab ov e 70 in
Fl or id a were no t pr ot ect ed fro m c a p i ta l pu ni sh m en t be cau se th ey were no t in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed

. N o w, un de r Hall
, de fen da nt s wit h IQ sc or es ab ov e 70 in
Fl or id a m ay be co ns id ered in te ll ect ua ll y di sa bl ed un de r Atk in s. See Hall
, 13 4 S. Ct

. at 19 90

. By in va li da ti ng Fl or id a's de fin it io n of th e m en ta ll y ret ard ed , t he S up rem e Co ur t in Hall al te red th e "cl as s of pe rs on s th at th e la w p u n i s h e s ." Sch rir o v. Su m m erl in
, 54 2 U.S. 34 8, 35 3 (2 00 4)

. It th us an no un ced a su bs ta nt iv e ru le th at

ap p l i e s ret ro act iv el y

. See id

. Fo r si m il ar reas on s, Goo dwi n no w pr es en ts a ne w cl ai m th at was n ot rai se d i n h is pre vi ou s h ab eas ap pl ic at io n.

In reac hi ng th e op po si te co n cl us io n, th e m ajor it y rel ie s up on th e Elev en th
Ci rcu it 's d eci si on in In r e Hen ry . 75 7 F .3d 11 51 , 11 63 –6 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 14 ). As t he
di ss en t in Hen ry po in te d ou t, th e pa ne l m ajor it y cam e to th is ha st y co nc lu si on a m ere th ree wee ks aft er Hal l was de ci de d, an d a s is th e cas e he re, un de r th e ti m e pr es su re of an "i m m in en t ex ecu ti on " rat he r th an in th e no r mal c o u r s e w it h a be ne fit of fu ll
br ie fin g. Id . at 1 16 3– 64

.

Goo dwi n has m ad e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at th e Mi ss ou ri S up rem e Co ur t's
refu sa l to co n s i d e r hi s ad ap ti ve fu nc ti on in g was co nt rary to Hall

. The ev id en ti ary

reco rd be fo re th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Hall sh owe d th e de fen da nt ha d un de rg on e se ve n ad m is si bl e IQ ev al ua ti on s, wi th on e te st sco re o f 71 , and a ran ge of sc or es be twee n 71 an d 80

. 13 4 S. Ct

. at 19 92

. Here, Goo dwi n pr es en te d ei gh t IQ ev al ua ti on s ta ke n be fo re he reac h e d th e ag e of ei gh te en wit h on e sc or e of 72 an d a ran ge be twee n 72

an d 8 4.

- 8 -The se nu m be rs req ui red Mi ss ou ri co ur ts to co ns id er ev id en ce of Goo dwi n's
ad ap ti ve fu nc ti on in g in or de r to de te rm in e whe th er he is wit hi n th e cl as s of pe op le
ab ou t who m th ere is a na ti on al co ns en su s fo rb id di ng th ei r ex ecu ti on , as th e Su pr em e Co ur t req ui red of th e Fl or id a co ur ts in H a ll

. 13 4 S. Ct

. at 19 98
, 20 01

. Thi s is

es pe ci al ly tru e gi ve n th e Co ur t's in st ru ct io n th at "[c ]our ts m us t reco gn iz e, as do es th e

m ed ic al co m

m un it y , th at th e IQ te st is im pr eci se ," an d cau ti on th at "[a ] St at e th at ig no res th e in he ren t i m

pr eci si on of t he se tes ts ris ks ex ecu ti ng a p ers on who su ffer s fro m in te ll ect ua l d is ab il it y ." Id . at 2 00 1.

In m y vi ew th e pr ud en t co ur se wou ld be to reco gn iz e th e ret ro act iv it y of Hall

an d th e vi ab il it y of Goo dwi n's cl ai m th at hi s rig ht s un de r th at de ci s i o n h a v e b een de ni ed

. I wou ld th eref

or e gr an t Goo dwi n au th or iz at io n to fil e hi s ha be as ap pl ic at io n,
gr an t th e rel at ed ap pl ic at io n fo r st ay of ex ecu ti on , an d pe rm it Goo dwi n an
op po rtu ni ty to l it ig at e h is cla im

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

- 9 -