Opinion ID: 4535549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Significant Limitations

Text: The history of Hill’s diagnoses and adaptive limitations was given short shrift in the Ohio courts. According to the Ohio courts, the anecdotal evidence in the record “constituted a ‘thin reed’ on which to make conclusions about Hill’s diagnosis.” Hill, 894 N.E.2d at 124. Yet, as the district court noted, “the state-court record was hardly a ‘thin reed.’ At well over 6,000 pages, it was voluminous.” Hill, No. 4:96-cv-00795, 2014 WL 2890416, at . “[T]he true ‘thin reed’ in this case was the information that was available concerning Hill’s adaptive functioning at the time he filed his Atkins claim,” which for whatever reason, was “the focus of the evaluation.” Id. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 12 Of the criteria for adaptive deficits set out in Lott, it is clear from the record that Hill displayed significant limitations, at the very least, in functional academics, hygiene/self-care, social skills, and self-direction. With respect to functional academics, Hill was considered “mentally retarded” by the Warren City Schools. He was diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded, “trainable mentally retarded,” or “educable mentally retarded” several times before he turned eighteen, beginning with the recognition that he was a “slower learning child” when he began formal schooling at age six. See R. 97 [disc 1] (Suppl. App.) (Pages 489–91). He scored 70 or below on every IQ test administered during his school years. Id. at 489–94, 511–19. He attended special education classes for the entirety of his school career. R. 29 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #3081–92).7 At age six, Hill did not know his age, but thought he was nine. R. 97 [disc 1] (Suppl. App.) (Pages 489). His visual-motor coordination was at the three-year-old level, his reading and verbal skills were at the five-year-old level, and he had a mental age of four years and six months. Id. at 490. At age 8 years and 8 months, Hill was considered functioning at a “midkindergarten to beginning first grade level.” Id. at 493. At age thirteen, he was functioning at the “mid-2nd grade level” in reading and the “mid-1st grade level” in arithmetic. Id. at 515. His psychologist noted that his learning abilities “ha[d] falled 22 points” in the last five years, and that his relative weaknesses lie “in not being able to recall everyday information, do abstract thinking, perform mental arithmetic, perceive a total social situation, [and] perceive patterns.” Id. At the same age, he was sent to a school for intellectually disabled children to continue his special education. See R. 97 [disc 1] (Suppl. App.) (Pages 513–19). A school psychologist set out instructional goals that included teaching Hill his address and phone number, as well as how to tell time. Id. at 578. He exhibited weaknesses in reasoning ability, originality, verbal interaction, and a lack of intellectual independence. By age fourteen, Hill was reading at a first-grade level and his math skills were at a thirdgrade level. He still had not mastered writing his own signature. Id. His teacher was working 7 Hill was “mainstreamed” only in physical education and music, and struggled even there to keep up with and socialize normally with his peer group. R. 97 [disc 1] (Hammer Test., Atkins Hr’g Tr.) (Pages 246–48). There is no record of him taking “mainstream” classes in any academic subject area, i.e., math, reading, or history. See id. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 13 on self-control skills that should generally be mastered by a kindergarten student, including “working without being disruptive” and not touching other students inappropriately. Teachers set academic objectives like learning to: tell time in five-minute intervals; write his own signature; shower regularly; put soiled clothing in the appropriate place; and eat and drink in a manner appropriate in a school setting. Hill was described as hyperactive and needing to complete tasks “one step at a time.” Hill was transferred to another, similar school at fifteen because of poor academic achievement and behavior. R. 31 (Mitigation Hr’g Tr. at 77) (Page ID #3389). At seventeen years old, after being arrested for, and pleading guilty to, two felony rape charges, the juvenile court placed Hill in a facility that housed youth offenders with mental disabilities or emotional problems. Id. at 120–23 (Page ID #3432–35). There, Hill completed ninth grade in special education classes at age eighteen. Id. at 81–82 (Page ID #3393–94). He was at the second- or third-grade reading level. Id. After being released, he returned to high school, but Fife’s murder occurred six months later. The record also demonstrates that Hill was deficient in hygiene and self-care. At the age of fourteen, he still needed to be told to shower regularly, brush his teeth, and apply deodorant every day. He would not independently follow through and take care of his hygiene unless he was told to do so. At approximately age sixteen, a group home officer noted that although Hill was “improving in his personal hygiene,” he still “need[ed] constant reminder[s] to shower, brush his teeth, etc.[.]” Hill continued to have problems with his hygiene in prison and had to be reminded frequently to groom himself. The record also demonstrates that Hill had limitations in the area of social skills. For example, the district court pointed to the testimony of psychologists who spoke to Hill’s “poor self-esteem, inability to interpret social situations and create positive relationships, and [the fact] that he was easily influenced by people, gravitated toward an antisocial peer group, and did not respond appropriately to authority figures.” Hill, 2014 WL 2890416, at . Hill’s school and court records demonstrate that he had trouble making friends. At seventeen, Hill was described as “socially constricted” and possessing “very few interpersonal coping skills.” Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 14 Hill also showed limitations in at least one more area—self-direction. Hill was described as “easily led” in both his school and court records, and from periods both before and after he committed serious crimes while apparently acting alone. In school, Hill was described as immature and “easily led by others into trouble around school,” like fighting. He was vulnerable to exploitation by older individuals, displayed inappropriate and immature behaviors in class, rarely considered the consequences before acting, and had trouble conforming his behavior to the rules or the law. When Hill was thirteen, he was described as exhibiting a “great deal of impulsivity.” When Hill was seventeen, he was evaluated by a psychologist who concluded that he had poor judgment, “d[id] not think of consequences,” was “highly suggestable,” and “was ‘likely to be exploited’” if placed in halfway home for adults “because of his ‘passivity and limited intellectual ability.’” Another report from that same time expressed concern about his tendency to follow others. Even when he was in prison at age twenty-one, a correctional officer reported that Hill was easily led by other inmates and had to be told how to do his job at every step of the way. See R. 97 [disc 1] (Atkins Hr’g Tr.) (Page 437–39). In addition to his significant limitations in functional academics, self-care, social skills, and self-direction, the record also demonstrates that Hill never has lived independently, never had a driver’s license or a bank account, never has been able to perform a job without substantial guidance from supervisors, was labeled “functionally illiterate” at school and in prison, could never read or write above a third-grade level, and could never adequately sign his own name. Even if Hill appeared to be functioning at an average skill level to a lay person’s eyes, it is common for someone with mild intellectual disability to present as functioning. See R. 97 [disc 1] (Hammer Test., Atkins Hr’g Tr.) (Page 189). That is why the impressions of schoolteachers are critical—because children often are not diagnosed “until they get to school and teachers who are familiar with kids at various cognitive abilities discover that this child is, No. 1, not where they should be for their age in terms of their current [intellectual] functioning . . . . And, two, that as they try to teach them they learn at a much slower rate.” Id. Comments from Hill’s schoolteachers were largely left unaddressed—or were distorted—in the Ohio courts’ analysis. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 15