John Russell Calhoun v. Darrel Fox

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama grants John Russell Calhoun’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on his Atkins v. Virginia claim. The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Calhoun has intellectual disability, including significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and significant adaptive deficits manifested before age eighteen. The court vacates his death sentences and imposes sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Holdings

1. Calhoun proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifestation of those conditions before age eighteen. He is intellectually disabled under Alabama law and therefore constitutionally ineligible for execution under Atkins.
2. A petitioner need not prove manifestation of a sub-70 IQ before age eighteen solely through IQ testing conducted before that age; adult IQ scores and adolescent achievement and functioning evidence may establish that the intellectual deficit existed before age eighteen.
3. The court struck the State expert's testimony concerning the significance of Calhoun's CAT scores because the expert report did not disclose an opinion about those scores, the State did not disclose a rebuttal expert opinion, and the late disclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless.
4. A certificate of appealability was unnecessary as to the claim on which relief was granted and was denied as to Claims Two through Twenty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Calhoun proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, an IQ of 70 or below, before age eighteen and when he committed the capital offenses.
2. Whether Calhoun proved significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior, including functional academics and social or interpersonal skills, that manifested before age eighteen.
3. Whether the State's undisclosed rebuttal testimony concerning the significance of Calhoun's adolescent CAT scores should be stricken under the expert-disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the sanction provision of Rule 37.
4. Whether Calhoun was entitled to a certificate of appealability on the claims previously denied by the court.

Disposition

vacated