Opinion ID: 2532465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Approaches to the Flynn Effect

Text: Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), lower courts have struggled to determine whether the Flynn effect should be applied in determining a defendant's eligibility for the death penalty. However, the issue is res nova in Louisiana. At one end of the spectrum, some courts have accepted the Flynn effect, and even mandated its application. For instance, naval courts are required to adjust IQ scores according to Flynn's formula. U.S. v. Parker, 65 M.J. 626, 629 (N.M. Ct.Crim. App.2007) (the observed IQ score must be adjusted by the `Flynn effect.') The U.S. Fourth Circuit has criticized and reversed a district court's decision for failure to take into account the relevant evidence of the Flynn effect. Walker v. True, 399 F.3d 315, 322-23 (4th Cir.2005). Yet the Walker court did not require the district court to accept the Flynn effect as true, but merely ordered it to consider the persuasiveness of Walker's Flynn Effect evidence on remand. Id. The Eleventh Circuit has likewise cited with approval an expert psychologist's testimony on the Flynn effect. Holladay v. Allen, 555 F.3d 1346, 1350 n. 4 (11th Cir.2009); Thomas v. Allen, 614 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1281 (M.D.Ala. 2009) (A court must also consider the Flynn effect and the standard error of measurement in determining whether a petitioner's IQ score falls within a range containing scores that are less than 70.) Other courts have taken a middle ground and left the decision of whether to credit or discredit the Flynn effect to the district court's discretion. See State v. Burke, 2005-Ohio-7020, 2005 WL 3557641 (Ohio Ct.App.2005) (A trial court must consider evidence presented on the Flynn effect, but, consistent with its prerogative to determine the persuasiveness of the evidence, the trial court is not bound to, but may, conclude the Flynn effect is a factor in a defendant's IQ score.) Still other courts, such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, have expressly disapproved of the Flynn effect: We have previously refrained from applying the Flynn effect, however, noting that it is an `unexamined scientific concept' that does not provide a reliable basis for concluding that an appellant has significant sub-average general intellectual functioning. Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 273 (Tex. Crim.App.2008); In re Mathis, 483 F.3d 395, 398 n. 1 (5th Cir.2007)(The Flynn Effect ... has not been accepted in this Circuit as scientifically valid.), Thomas v. Quarterman, 335 Fed.Appx. 386, 390-91 (5th Cir.2009) (A state court decision imposing death penalty was not unreasonable for failure to apply the Flynn effect). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals also recently cited In re Mathis and expressed skepticism regarding the Flynn effect's scientific validity. Beckworth v. State, ___ So.3d ___, ___ n. 5, 2009 Ala.Crim.App. LEXIS 64 at  n. 5 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). The Kentucky Supreme Court has likewise disapproved of the Flynn effect. Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky.2005). As the relevant statute contains a bright line IQ cutoff of 70, [2] the court reasoned it was up to the legislature to determine how an IQ score is determined. By passing a statute imposing a bright line rule, with no provision for adjustment by the court, the Kentucky legislature chose not to credit the Flynn effect. Id. at 375-76.