US Supreme Court upholds execution of man with child’s IQ

In a majority vote of 7-2 the US Supreme Court sitting in Washington last week upheld the death sentence handed down against Holly Wood - a man with the IQ of a seven-year-old child. 

Wood was convicted of murdering his former girlfriend, Ruby Lois Gosha, by a court in Alabama in 1993. He was represented during his murder trial by three court-appointed attorneys, including one fresh out of law school and with no experience on a capital case. The fledgling lawyer took charge of the case at the sentencing phase after Wood had been found guilty and jurors were deciding if he would get life in jail or the death penalty.

The majority decision handed down on 20 January 2010 was written by Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. Sotomayor and six other judges concluded that Wood’s attorney has not erred in failing to tell a jury that his client had an IQ of between 59 and 64, despite the fact that this would indicate significant mental retardation.

The Supreme Court found that the attorney had deliberately chosen not to present a psychiatric report about Wood's mental profile for fear it would hurt him and went on to describe the decision as “strategic” and “not unreasonable”.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens dissenting described the decision to withhold the report as “the antithesis of a 'strategic' choice”. Justice Stevens proceeded to elucidate that:

"There is a world of difference between a decision not to introduce evidence at the guilt phase of a trial and a failure to investigate mitigating evidence that might be admissible at the penalty phase… the only reasonable factual conclusion I can draw from this record is that counsel’s decision to do so was the result of inattention and neglect."

In 2002 the Supreme Court barred the execution of those with an IQ under 70. However, because Wood’s appeal to dismiss his death sentence was grounded on the basis of his attorney's alleged incompetence, rather than his mental disability, his appeal was dismissed. 

One might expand on the observations of Justice John Paul Stevens and conclude that upholding the death sentence against a man with a mental age of seven on such a technicality is indeed the antithesis of strategic choice, reason and most importantly justice.