Last week, Ronell Wilson — a man who murdered two undercover police officers in 2003 and had been sentenced to death by lethal injection in New York’s Eastern District (the only death penalty authorized since 1988) — had that sentence overturned by the same judge who’d imposed it several years ago.
Why? His lawyers presented a compelling case that demonstrated that although Wilson had a borderline IQ which made him just slightly above what’s considered mentally retarded (now known as “intellectually disabled”), other factors relating to his adaptive functions made him ineligible for the death.
Wilson is not a sympathetic case. He murdered two detectives at point-blank range during a sting operation relating to gun purchases. While in prison, he impregnated (by consent) a prison guard who was later fired and prosecuted. According to his lawyer, David Stern, he would have preferred being killed than spending the rest of life in prison.
AI + legal workflows: 5 plays that actually move the needle
Unsure where to start with AI? Learn 5 law firm workflows that can improve intake, conflicts, drafting, docketing, and time tracking—plus prompts, ethics tips, and steps for real ROI.
Yet in spite of his own wish to die and the controversy (mostly by police organizations) about letting him live, Judge Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York ruled last week that someone’s IQ level alone is insufficient to determine the extent and degree of his intellectual handicap. After weeks of testimony by experts on both sides, the judge issued a 76-page decision, ruling that other factors relating to Wilson’s life, so-called adaptive functions like his ability to communicate, comprehend, and function in a social setting, his medical history, etc., contributed to his intellectual disability to the extent that the death penalty, for him, would be unjust.
Back in 2002, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of persons who are mentally retarded. In Atkins v. Virginia [536 U.S.304], Justice Stevens wrote, “No legitimate penological purpose is served by executing a person with intellectual disability.” (New York State abolished the death penalty in 2004, but it still exists for federal cases.)
Rationalizing that punishment is only justified for three reasons — rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution — the court looked at each reason in turn and decided that 1) rehabilitation is obviously not a possibility if the person is killed; 2) deterrence is also an impossible goal in that “those with intellectual disability are, by reason of their condition, likely unable to make the calculated judgments that are the premise for the deterrence rationale,” and 3) retribution is less merited a goal for people with intellectual disabilities in that their diminished capacity “lessens moral culpability and hence the retributive value of the punishment.”
Stevens also noted that the intellectually disabled are at a greater risk of wrongful execution because they are “more likely to give false confessions, are often poor witnesses, and are less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel.”
Chrometa: Turning Time Into Billable Value For Modern Lawyers
Adoption of Chrometa represents more than a technological upgrade; it reflects a professional philosophy that values accuracy, transparency, and efficiency.
So why, if Wilson is intellectually impaired, was he still fighting this 14 years later? Because states disagree on exactly what qualifies as making a person intellectually disabled. In some states, there’s a clear cut-off, a line drawn in the sand. The cut-off is a 70 IQ. If a person has a 69 IQ, he’s considered intellectually disabled and thus can’t be killed. But if he scores a 71, he can be executed. Seems arbitrary, right?
The Supreme Court agreed and in 2014, in Hall v. Florida, took another run at this issue, reviewing the Florida standard which used 70 as a strict cut-off. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional not to consider some margin of error (Standard Error of Measurement, or SEM) in any case involving a defendant with an IQ close to 70.
In such cases, the court ruled, defense counsel should be permitted to present other evidence of deficits to establish bona fide intellectual disability. That information could include, among other things, testimony or reports on the defendant’s background, family life, education, drug use, and general functioning in the community, to assist the court in making its determination.
The Wilson reversal case came on the heels of this decision. The judge heard evidence that Wilson had been born to crack-addicted parents, had been in foster care by age 5, had difficulty communicating, and that thus, in spite of his borderline IQ score, was intellectual disabled and ineligible for death.
Funny way to put it — ineligible for death — as though it was something people wanted to obtain, like being ineligible to get a discount ticket or apply for a particular job.
The death penalty is the harshest course of action the government can take against a wrongdoer. Nineteen states have abolished it, leaving 31 states that still use it.
Ronell Wilson may have been nobody’s friend and have accomplished little good in his life, but his mental functioning was judged to be impaired. As his lawyer David Stern told the media, “It should make everyone proud that we, as a country, don’t execute people who are intellectually disabled.”
That’s the line in the sand, not a mere IQ number.
Toni Messina has been practicing criminal defense law since 1990, although during law school she spent one summer as an intern in a large Boston law firm and realized quickly it wasn’t for her. Prior to attending law school, she worked as a journalist from Rome, Italy, reporting stories of international interest for CBS News and NPR. She keeps sane by balancing her law practice with a family of three children, playing in a BossaNova band, and dancing flamenco. She can be reached at [email protected] or tonimessinalaw.com.