Opinion ID: 3187215
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Testimony of Dr. Zimmerman

Text: Dr. Zimmerman began his testimony by recounting the information contained in his 1998 affidavits, including Ledford’s score of 69 on the WAIS-III, his score of 66 on the Kaufman test, and his ultimate conclusion that Ledford is mentally retarded. He testified that he administered the WAIS-III test in 1998 because it was only out for a year and was recently normed. He then administered the Kaufman test to corroborate the WAIS-III test. According to Dr. Zimmerman, there was no evidence of malingering during the 1998 evaluation. Dr. Zimmerman addressed the higher IQ scores that Ledford obtained in tests administered by other psychologists and opined that they did not contradict his conclusion that Ledford is mentally retarded, either because of the Flynn effect or because the particular test is not a proper measure of IQ for mental retardation. Dr. Zimmerman did admit, upon examination by the court, that it is not a typical practice to incorporate the Flynn effect into someone’s IQ score when drafting a clinical report. Still, he asserted that the Flynn effect is an accepted phenomenon in the psychological community. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that he was aware that Dr. Perri administered a WAIS-R test in 1992, on which Ledford scored a 77. Dr. Zimmerman discounted that test because (1) it was administered 14 years after it was normed and (2) when Dr. Zimmerman adjusted for the Flynn effect, Ledford would have scored 43 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 44 of 103 approximately a 73, which was within the standard error of measurement for intellectually disabled individuals. Similarly, Dr. Zimmerman opined that Ledford’s score of 85 on Dr. Herendeen’s Shipley test was not contrary to his findings, as the Shipley test had not been normed in over 50 years and, regardless, the Shipley test is a group test that is not a good measure of IQ. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that a prison psychiatrist administered a Culture Fair test on Ledford, which yielded a score of 85. According to Dr. Zimmerman, the Culture Fair is not an appropriate test to measure IQ, as it is not properly normed or individually administered. In 2005 and 2006, Dr. Zimmerman interviewed five of Ledford’s sisters and his parents, reviewed all post-1998 lay witness and expert affidavits, and administered the Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scales (“Vineland”) to one of Ledford’s sisters to assess Ledford’s adaptive functioning. Dr. Zimmerman determined that Ledford suffered from adaptive functioning deficits in the areas of functional academics, work, and self-direction. Dr. Zimmerman noted that Ledford had difficulty in school and performed poorly on standardized tests. Ledford was twice held back in elementary school and went forward because students could not be held back for two consecutive years. Dr. Zimmerman understood that Ledford tried very hard, but just could not 44 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 45 of 103 quite catch on. These facts indicated to Dr. Zimmerman that Ledford suffers from adaptive deficits in the area of academic functioning. Dr. Zimmerman acknowledged that Ledford performed simple jobs for short periods of time. These jobs included tying carpet threads together, feeding lumber into a machine, and working at a gas station. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that Ledford would not stay at these jobs for a long period of time because he did not have good adaptive skills. While one of Ledford’s sisters indicated that he did not go into work because he was hung over all the time, Dr. Zimmerman believed that Ledford generally did not work while intoxicated. Rather, Dr. Zimmerman opined that the real reason Ledford would leave jobs was due to his adaptive functioning deficit in the area of work. Ledford did nothing to benefit or improve himself and had no goals, which indicated to Dr. Zimmerman an adaptive deficit in the area of self-direction. Dr. Zimmerman testified that Ledford’s subaverage intellectual functioning and adaptive deficits had their onset prior to the age of 18. On cross-examination, the state presented Dr. Zimmerman with the raw data from his evaluation and Dr. Zimmerman admitted that he was missing two pages from the Luria-Nebraska test, as well as the first page of the Wide Range Achievement Test. Dr. Zimmerman admitted that it was “extremely” difficult to read his own handwritten recordings of Ledford’s responses to the vocabulary, similarities, information, and comprehension sections of the WAIS-III, which 45 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 46 of 103 would have made it “very difficult” to accurately score that test. The state confronted Dr. Zimmerman with evidence suggesting that he underscored Ledford’s adaptive functioning abilities on the Vineland test he administered to Ledford’s sister. The state provided multiple examples of Ledford’s documented abilities that directly contradicted Ledford’s sister’s responses on the Vineland. For example, Ledford’s sister reported that Ledford did not speak in full sentences, which was clearly contradicted by record evidence. Dr. Zimmerman could not account for these discrepancies. Dr. Zimmerman’s response was simply, “That’s what was reported to me.” XII. SECTION 2254 EVIDENTIARY HEARING – STATE’S EVIDENCE A. Testimony of Dr. Glen King Dr. Glen King, a psychologist and attorney, testified that Ledford is not mentally retarded. In forming his opinion, Dr. King interviewed Ledford, performed psychological testing on Ledford, and reviewed medical records, school records, prison records, lay witness affidavits, and previous psychological tests, including Dr. Zimmerman’s. Dr. King looked at Ledford’s family history, which revealed that Ledford’s mother may be borderline retarded, though he testified that this fact would not have much of an effect on his evaluation of Ledford. On January 10, 2007, Dr. King evaluated Ledford for approximately three hours. Ledford performed “very well” during Dr. King’s initial clinical evaluation, 46 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 47 of 103 wherein he recited vital personal information, provided an accurate background narrative, and correctly self-reported the existence of certain documents. Dr. King administered the WAIS-III to Ledford. Ledford scored an 86 verbal IQ, which, according to Dr. King, would place him in the “low average range of ability with verbal IQ scores,” and a much lower 76 performance IQ, for a total IQ of 79. Dr. King administered the Wide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT-4) to Ledford. Ledford scored an 85 on the verbal comprehension index, an 80 in the perceptual organizational index, and an 85 on the reading composite portion. Dr. King testified that the discrepancy between Ledford’s verbal and performance IQs indicated the presence of a learning disability that would have hindered his academic functioning, such as poor processing speed, but did not indicate an overall intellectual disability. In fact, Dr. King “[didn’t] know of any psychologist who would diagnose someone with mental retardation who generates a [verbal IQ] score [of 86].” Dr. King opined that Ledford’s past performance on the Shipley test and Culture Fair bolstered his conclusion that Ledford was not mentally retarded. Dr. King addressed the Flynn effect, testifying that Dr. Flynn’s methodology was flawed and should not be applied to IQ tests. Dr. King reviewed Dr. Flynn’s data and expressed doubt that IQ inflation was an observable phenomenon. Based on Dr. Flynn’s data, Dr. King believed that some IQ scores may actually decrease 47 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 48 of 103 over time. Dr. King testified that the Flynn effect “is not accepted in the general community” and is only seen in capital punishment litigation. Beyond the objective metrics, Ledford displayed a level of general knowledge to Dr. King that suggested he was not mentally retarded. For example, Ledford knew that Einstein’s name is associated with the theory of relativity, knew the capital of Italy, knew what the Koran is, knew the president during the U.S. Civil War, knew the approximate population of the world, and was familiar with then current events, such as the execution of Saddam Hussein and the number of American troops who had died in Iraq. According to Dr. King, while some mentally retarded people may have known some of these facts, it was very unlikely that they would know all the ones Ledford did. Dr. King noted that many of Ledford’s functional skills were far greater than other experts reported. For example, Ledford could add, subtract, and multiply three-digit numbers. Ledford had a long history of writing letters and poetry, which demonstrated effective reading, writing, and communication skills. While Ledford’s IQ scores demonstrated that “he did not meet the first hurdle to be diagnosed [with] mental retardation,” Dr. King nevertheless “went ahead and did the [adaptive functioning] evaluation just to be more thorough,” though that “probably wasn’t necessary.” To that end, Dr. King administered the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System II Test, which consisted of a self-reporting 48 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 49 of 103 “structured interview” with Ledford, designed to assess his adaptive functioning skills. Ledford’s general adaptive composite was 83, which would be in the “high borderline range of functioning.” Ledford performed poorly in specific categories, such as functional academics and health and safety, though that may have been because Ledford had “not as much data to draw on to make some of those assessments.” Dr. King abstained from measuring Ledford’s work component, as he did not have a long work history. Dr. King concluded that Ledford may have somewhat impaired adaptive functioning skills, but none of them constituted “significant adaptive functioning deficits.” On cross-examination, Dr. King admitted that he may have made certain minor errors in scoring the WAIS-III, but stated that those errors, if corrected, would have yielded an IQ score of 78, rather than 79.