The Government does not dispute that Coonce has offered enough evidence on the first two prongs of this definition to merit an Atkins hearing. With respect to the third prong, however, the courts below held that Coonce categorically could not prove intellectual disability because the Eighth Amendment required onset prior to age 18. Coonce, by contrast, argued that his age-20 onset may accord with the definition of intellectual disability. Since the decision below, the consensus in support of Coonce’s position has only grown.
The AAIDD’s change in definition offers powerful evidence of this shift. As this Court demonstrated in Hall, the analysis begins by consulting the medical community’s opinions. “The legal determination of intellectual disability is distinct from a medical diagnosis, but it is informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.” Our precedent does not “license disregard of current medical standards”). As noted, the AAIDD (relied upon in Hall) now has replaced its prior age18 onset requirement with an age-22 onset requirement, evincing a clear shift.
Under the circumstances it is disturbing how seven of the nine justices are okay with the low-functioning petitioner’s blood on their hands. They would likely respond by noting the disturbing facts surrounding the petitioner’s offenses. The facts of death penalty cases are almost always gruesome.