Federal Court Denies Warren Hill’s Appeal to Halt his Execution
GCDD has been closely advocating for and following the national controversy surrounding the Warren Hill case, a man with an undisputed intellectual disability who is in a legal fight to have his death penalty sentence overturned. Despite being officially diagnosed as having intellectual disabilities, Georgia law places an even higher burden of proof on defendants in death penalty cases, requiring them to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they have intellectual disabilities.
After two previous execution halts in July 2012 and February 2013, on April 23, 2013 in a 2-1 vote, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals denied Warren Hill's petition for the court to consider new evidence that proves he has an intellectual disability and would halt his execution.
"People with intellectual disabilities deserve to live as full citizens of this country and State, protected by laws designed to recognize our diversity and uphold our basic rights, despite our differences," said GCDD Executive Director Eric Jacobson, who has been active with other disability organizations in advocating for Warren Hill's rights as a person with intellectual disabilities.
Before this new turn of events, Terrica Redfield Ganzy, a staff attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights and a member of the Board of Directors of Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (GFADP), was invited by the GCDD Making a Difference magazine editor to explain more about the larger legal implications of the Hill case in a perspectives article in the Spring 2013 edition, just published in mid- April.
Below is the perspectives article by Terrica Redfield Ganzy, "Georgia's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard for Proving Intellectual Disability Must Go," reprinted from Making a Difference, Spring 2013.
Georgia's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard for Proving Intellectual Disability Must Go
By Terrica Redfield Ganzy
Georgia is the only State in the nation that requires those with intellectual disabilities facing the death penalty to prove their disability beyond a reasonable doubt. Once a trailblazer as the first State to outlaw the execution of those with intellectual disabilities, this requirement makes Georgia the most regressive State in the nation on this issue.
The fact that limitations co-occur with strengths, particularly in those with mild intellectual disabilities, is not readily understood by most. Therefore, a capital defendant's abilities, no matter how rudimentary, inherently create reasonable doubt about whether the defendant has an intellectual disability. While Georgia was the first to offer a lifeline to capital defendants with intellectual disabilities, it turns out that the lifeline is just an illusion. A person's ability to prove an intellectual disability under the current law is virtually impossible.
Warren Hill, a man with an intellectual disability on Georgia's death row, is an example of this conundrum in practice. Hill has been determined by a preponderance of the evidence to have an intellectual disability by two separate courts, yet he faces execution because he hasn't been able to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has granted a stay of execution to determine whether new evidence in Hill's case will be heard, the court is not reviewing the constitutionality of Georgia's statute. Thus, a change to the law is the only way to prevent those with intellectual disabilities facing the death penalty in Georgia from being executed.
The American Bar Association (ABA) has provided guidance to Georgia lawmakers on how to rectify O.C.G.A. § 17-7-131. In its 2006 report on Georgia's capital punishment system, the ABA study commission described Georgia's beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof as inappropriate. They recommended that Georgia either "place the burden of disproving mental retardation on the prosecution when the defendant presents a substantial showing that he may have mental retardation" or "limit the burden of proof required by the defendant to a preponderance of the evidence." Now is the time to act on these recommendations.
The Georgia legislature should commission its own study, so mental health experts, social workers, parents and those with intellectual disabilities could educate lawmakers on what it means to have intellectual disabilities; why making the determination is not as easy as looking at a person; how a person with an intellectual disability could, for example, hold a job; why focusing on a person's strengths is the wrong way to assess a disability; why a beyond a reasonable doubt burden for proving an intellectual disability is unreasonable; why a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof would ensure the interests of justice; and the feasibility of other options to protect people with intellectual disabilities from execution, including the ABA's recommendation that a burden of disproving intellectual disability be placed on the State.
By taking action to ensure that those with intellectual disabilities facing the death penalty are in fact protected from execution, Georgia could reestablish itself as a leader in protecting some of society's most vulnerable members.
Terrica Redfield Ganzy Bio:
Terrica Redfield Ganzy is a staff attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights and a member of the Board of Directors of Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (GFADP)
