Opinion ID: 3176573
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Witnesses and Expert Materials

Text: In addition to its three experts, the State called five other witnesses to testify at Brumfield’s Atkins hearing. Warrick Dunn was Corporal Smothers’ oldest son. Dunn met with Brumfield on October 23, 2007. Commenting on Brumfield’s verbal abilities, Dunn stated that the two of them “had a conversation like two adults” and agreed that Brumfield was able to express himself well. Jerry Callahan, a retired Baton Rouge Police Department lieutenant, was the lead investigator of Corporal Smothers’ murder. Callahan interrogated Brumfield and was responsible for videotaping Brumfield’s two confessions. Callahan stated that during the five hours he spent with Brumfield, Brumfield never had any problems communicating and, in fact, 18 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 “communicated easily.” None of the State’s final three witnesses testified substantively on Brumfield’s intellectual disability. In addition to his three testifying experts, Brumfield also relied on a report compiled by James Merikangas, M.D. 19 In his report, Merikangas stated that a neurological examination of Brumfield revealed no acquired brain damage or ongoing disease. The district court recognized that the implication of this report is that Brumfield’s cognitive deficiencies stem from an underlying disability, as no physical damage to Brumfield’s brain explains his problems. Additionally, the report implies that these deficiencies have been present for the entirety of Brumfield’s life, as no physical damage occurring after his developmental years explains his problems. 4. The District Court’s Conclusion on Intellectual Disability Beginning with the first prong of the intellectual disability test, the district court found that, based on its analysis of Louisiana law and the mental health literature, “an IQ score of 75 or below does not preclude a finding of mild [intellectual disability] for Atkins purposes.” Brumfield II, 854 F. Supp. 2d at 389. After listing Brumfield’s scores on previous IQ tests, the court explained that his “scores consistently show him scoring between 70 and 75 on various IQ tests, a range which falls squarely within the upper bounds of mild [intellectual disability] according to the AAIDD's clinical definition.” Id. at 389–90. Further, the court noted that “[e]very expert that has testified in this matter has admitted that Brumfield meets the intellectual functioning prong of the [intellectual disability] test as set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 905.5.1(H)(1).” Id. at 390. Turning to the second prong and relying on the Red Book, the court explained that “Prong Two involves an assessment of Brumfield's adaptive 19 Merikangas received his M.D. in 1969 and is board certified in neuropsychiatry. 19 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 20 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 skills in the areas of conceptual, social, and practical skills” and that “[h]e must show a significant limitation in at least one of those three domains to satisfy the adaptive skills prong.” Id. at 392 (citing Red Book, supra, at 14). “Without reliable standardized measures available, the [district c]ourt [relied] on the testimony of the expert witnesses and their reports, the [c]ourt’s independent evaluation of Brumfield’s social, educational, medical, and criminal histories, and a common sense appraisal of Brumfield’s actions and abilities.” Id. at 393. In doing so, the district court remained cognizant that an intellectual disability “is ruled in by areas of impairment but is not ruled out by areas of competence” and that “‘people with [intellectual disabilities] are complex human beings’ who may have ‘strengths in one aspect of an adaptive skill in which they otherwise show an overall limitation.’” Id. (quoting Red Book, supra, at 8). The court further noted that it “must take into account the retrospective diagnostic guideline admonishing practitioners to ‘not use past criminal behavior or verbal behavior to infer [a] level of adaptive behavior.’” Id. (quoting Red Book, supra, at 22). However, the court recognized the “propensity of Louisiana courts to take such maladaptive criminal behavior into account when discussing the adaptive skills prong of the [intellectual disability] test.” Id. at 394. “With these important precepts in mind,” the district court evaluated each of the three domains of adaptive behavior under the AAIDD guidelines. Id. at 396. The court began with the conceptual skills, or “functional academics,” domain. Id. First, the court found that “Brumfield's writing abilities are severely limited,” as he “cannot write freehand” and “takes an inordinate amount of time to write a simple, one-page letter.” Id. Second, Brumfield does not have adequate reading abilities, as he reads at “a fourth grade level.” Id. Third, “Brumfield has a dismal record of academic accomplishments in the classroom.” Id. And Brumfield “reached a plateau 20 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 21 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 somewhere between the fourth and sixth grade, which is where mildly [intellectually disabled] individuals generally fall.” Id. Based on the procedural posture of this case, the district court noted that it was required to “view, more or less in isolation, whether Brumfield [met] the clinical criteria.” Id. at 401. In weighing the credibility of the experts in this case, the district court ultimately found the testimony of Weinstein and Swanson more credible than the testimony of Blanche on the second prong of the intellectual disability test. 20 Id. Blanche “lacked basic knowledge about the AAIDD’s standards until he was deposed in this case shortly before the hearing.” Id. Blanche also “failed to conduct interviews with anyone other than Brumfield himself, which [ran] afoul of the basic guidelines for retrospective diagnoses.” Id. Beyond the expert testimony, the court held that it could not “accord great weight to the facts of the crime, even though they must be taken into account, because the diagnostic guidelines for assessing maladaptive behavior as a part of adaptive skills ha[d] not been sufficiently shown to be present in th[e] case.” Id. “Ultimately, the [district c]ourt f[ound] that, based on the credibility of petitioner’s witnesses combined with the documented problems with the bases of testimony by the State’s experts, Brumfield [showed] by a preponderance of the evidence that he ha[d] significantly limited conceptual skills.” Id. “[O]n balance, the evidence [demonstrated that Brumfield met] the AAIDD’s definition of [intellectual disability] with respect to the conceptual domain of adaptive behavior.” Id. “Because Brumfield’s deficit in conceptual skills 20 The State’s other expert, Hoppe, did not make any determinations on whether Brumfield had significant limitations in adaptive behavior. 21 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 22 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 satisfie[d] Prong Two of the [intellectual disability] test, the [district c]ourt [conducted] only a brief review of the other two domains.” 21 Id. The district court next addressed the final prong of the intellectual disability test: whether the disability manifested prior to age 18. Id. at 403. The court credited Weinstein’s unrebutted testimony that “there is no question that [Brumfield] had very serious problems from very early on in life.” Id. Swanson reached a similar conclusion in her report. Id. Merikangas evaluated Brumfield in 2007 and concluded that he had no “acquired brain damage or ongoing disease that might negate the existence of an organic reason for Brumfield’s [intellectual disability].” Id. While Brumfield was evaluated during his youth by “no less than six doctors,” none of whom diagnosed him as intellectually disabled, “Swanson [gave] the [c]ourt a compelling reason to not draw a negative inference due to the lack of childhood diagnosis.” Id. at 403– 04. Additionally, “[e]tiological factors appear[ed] to bolster the conclusion that Brumfield was and is [intellectually disabled].” 22 Id. at 404. Weinstein testified that Brumfield’s mother “took psychotropic medication during her pregnancy” and that Brumfield weighed only “three and a half pounds” and suffered fetal distress at birth. Id. “The etiological risk factors, along with 21 Analyzing the social skills domain, the court found that “[o]n balance, this domain [was] a close call, but [it] d[id] not find Brumfield [met] the criteria for a significant overall deficit in the domain of social skills.” Id. at 402. Considering the practical skills domain, the court found that “Brumfield ha[d] not met his burden of showing he ha[d] significant deficits in practical skills.” Id. at 403. 22 As Greenspan explained, “[e]tiology has to do with cause and effect or things that put the person at risk that could explain why he became [intellectually disabled].” Greenspan further explained that “for the most part, when we talk about etiology, we are talking about something biological,” such as “an infection or a brain malformation that came about in utero . . . [or] some physical cause that organically places the person at risk” of developing an intellectual disability. Environmental causes of intellectual disability also exist, such as severe child abuse; and some etiological risk factors are both environmental and biological such as “oxygen deprivation at birth, or a low birth weight.” 22 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 23 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 Brumfield’s school and medical records, indicate[d] that his mental health problems and developmental delays occurred prior to adulthood.” Id. at 405. “Based on the showing of substantial intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior deficiencies detailed above, the [district c]ourt credit[ed] the testimony of Brumfield’s experts and f[ound that] Brumfield ha[d] met his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that those deficits occurred before he turned 18.” Id. Because the district court concluded that Brumfield was intellectually disabled, it granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rendering him ineligible for execution. Id. at 405–06. C. Proceedings in the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court The State timely appealed the district court’s grant of the writ to this court. Brumfield (5th Cir.), 744 F.3d at 922. This court reversed the district court, concluding that Brumfield’s habeas petition did not satisfy either of § 2254(d)’s requirements. Id. at 927. First, because this court determined that none of the Supreme Court’s precedents required a state court to grant an Atkins petitioner funds to develop his claim, it rejected the district court’s conclusion that the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. Id. at 925–26. Second, because this court’s “review of the record persuade[d it] that the state court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Brumfield an evidentiary hearing,” it held that the state court’s decision did not rest on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Id. at 926. Having concluded that Brumfield failed both of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this court did not review the district court’s determination that Brumfield was intellectually disabled. Id. at 927. However, in a footnote, this court noted that “[e]ven if we were to consider the new evidence presented to the district court, we likely would hold that Brumfield failed to establish an Atkins claim.” Id. at 927 n.8. 23 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 24 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated this court’s decision on June 18, 2015, in a 5–4 decision. Brumfield (S. Ct.), 135 S. Ct. at 2283. The Court explained that to obtain an Atkins evidentiary hearing, a defendant in Louisiana must “put forward sufficient evidence to raise a ‘reasonable ground’ to believe him to be intellectually disabled.” Id. at 2274 (citing Williams, 831 So. 2d at 861). The Court held that the state court’s refusal to grant Brumfield an Atkins hearing rested on two unreasonable factual determinations that related directly to the three-part test for intellectual disability. Id. at 2276– 82. First, the Court noted that “the state court apparently believed” that Brumfield’s IQ score of 75 and an expert witness’s testimony that he “may have scored higher on another test . . . belied the claim that Brumfield was intellectually disabled because they necessarily precluded any possibility that he possessed subaverage intelligence.” Id. at 2277. However, the Court explained, “this evidence was entirely consistent with intellectual disability.” Id. The Court further explained—relying on its prior decision in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), and Louisiana statutory law and caselaw— that “Brumfield’s reported IQ test result of 75 was squarely in the range of potential intellectual disability.” Id. at 2278. “To conclude . . . that Brumfield’s reported IQ score of 75 somehow demonstrated that he could not possess subaverage intelligence therefore reflected an unreasonable determination of the facts.” Id. Second, the Court held that the state court unreasonably determined that “the record failed to raise any question as to Brumfield’s ‘impairment . . . in adaptive skills.’” Id. at 2279. Even under the interpretation of the second prong of the intellectual disability test “most favorable to the State,” the Court held that it was unreasonable for the state court to conclude that Brumfield lacked deficits in adaptive behavior. Id. at 2279–81. The Court noted a number of examples of Brumfield’s deficits in the state trial court record. Id. 24 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 25 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 at 2279–80. For example, when Brumfield was born, he had a low birth weight and “slower responses than other babies.” Id. at 2279. Brumfield was placed “in special classes in school and in multiple mental health facilities.” Id. One report from one of these facilities “questioned his intellectual functions,” and Dr. Bolter noted that Brumfield had only a “fourth-grade reading level . . . with respect to ‘simple word recognition,’” and did not even reach that level with respect to “comprehension.” Id. at 2280. “All told,” the Court concluded, “the evidence in the state-court record provided substantial grounds to question Brumfield’s adaptive functioning” because “[a]n individual, like Brumfield, who was placed in special education classes at an early age, was suspected of having a learning disability, and can barely read at a fourth-grade level, certainly would seem to be deficient in both ‘[u]nderstanding and use of language’ and ‘[l]earning.’” 23 Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Finally, with respect to the third prong of the test, the Court noted that “the state trial court never made any finding that Brumfield had failed to produce evidence suggesting he could meet this age-of-onset requirement.” Id. at 2282. Therefore, there was no “determination on that point to which a federal court had to defer in assessing whether Brumfield satisfied § 2254(d).” Id. The Court noted that “[i]f Brumfield presented sufficient evidence to suggest that he was intellectually limited, as we have made clear he did, there is little question that he also established good reason to think that he had been 23 The Court also noted that: An individual who points to evidence that he was at risk of “neurological trauma” at birth, was diagnosed with a learning disability and placed in special education classes, was committed to mental health facilities and given powerful medication, reads at a fourth-grade level, and simply cannot “process information,” has raised substantial reason to believe that he suffers from adaptive impairments. Id. at 2281. 25 Case: 12-30256 Document: 00513375522 Page: 26 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 No. 12-30256 so since he was a child.” Id. at 2283. Based on its conclusion that the state trial court decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), the Supreme Court held that “Brumfield ha[d] satisfied the requirements of § 2254(d).” Brumfield (S. Ct.), 135 S. Ct. at 2283. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of this court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. The sole remaining issue on remand is whether the district court clearly erred when it found Brumfield was intellectually disabled, as the Supreme Court held that Brumfield had satisfied § 2254(d) and that Brumfield “was therefore entitled to have his Atkins claim considered on the merits in federal court.” Id. at 2273.