Mays v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The consideration of SEM as discussed by the Supreme Court, however, is not a one-way ratchet. The imprecision of IQ testing not only provides that IQ scores above 70 but within the SEM do not conclusively establish a lack of significantly subaverage' general intellectual functioning, but also that IQ scores below 70 but. within the SEM do not conclusively establish the opposite. In other words, a sentencing court may find a defendant to have failed to meet the first prong of the AAMR’s definition of intellectual disability even if his IQ score is below 70 so long as 70 is within the margin of error and other evidence presented provides sufficient evidence of his intellectual functioning,””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reeves v. State

2. “Unlike the [IQ-score] cutoff at issue in Hall , the Briseno factors do not conflict with Atkins — Atkins says ■ nothing about what kind, of evidence should be considered when , determining whether a defendant’s significantly, subayerage general intellectual functioning meaningfully limits his adaptive functioning. That question has been left explicitly to the states, and the definition adopted by Texas in Briseno, including the Briseno factors, in no way departs from any of the Court’s pronouncements. :”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Steven Butler v. William Stephens, Director