Hamm v. Smith
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Hamm v. Smith and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Hamm v. Smith.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case of Hamm v. Smith, where the Eleventh Circuit had affirmed the vacating of Joseph Clifton Smith's death sentence due to intellectual disability. The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's decision, noting ambiguity in whether the lower court applied a per se rule or a holistic approach in assessing Smith's IQ scores. The case was remanded for clarification on the decision's basis.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Hamm v. Smith.
The Court held that the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded for clarification.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Hamm v. Smith. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Cruel and Unusual Punishment is relevant to Hamm v. Smith
The case involves the vacating of a death sentence based on intellectual disability, which relates to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The District Court below vacated the death sentence of Joseph Clifton Smith after concluding that he is intellectually disabled.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Hamm v. Smith
The case addresses whether the lower court applied the correct procedure in determining intellectual disability, implicating procedural due process concerns.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The case is remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to clarify the basis for its decision.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Hamm v. Smith that support the summary and concepts above.
The District Court below vacated the death sentence of Joseph Clifton Smith after concluding that he is intellectually disabled.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion might be read to suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender's lowest score is dispositive.
The case is remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to clarify the basis for its decision.
