Court's death penalty ruling expected to spur appeals

Ramon Martinez-Villareal's IQ measures somewhere between 50 and 60, and he can't read or speak in complex sentences. From his cell on Arizona's death row, he spends hours copying Bible passages he doesn't understand and gives them to his attorney.

Martinez-Villareal, who fatally shot two farm workers in 1982, has spent nearly two decades on death row and once came within eight hours of execution. But his attorneys say Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the execution of the mentally retarded appears to guarantee that he will live out a natural life in prison.

"It's premature to say it, but I think this is the end of Ramon's case," said his attorney Sean Bruner. "I don't think anyone has claimed this man isn't mentally retarded."

The high court's ruling -- that executing retarded killers violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment -- immediately sent Bruner and defense attorneys nationwide scrambling to review files in death penalty cases. Prosecutors across the country said they're bracing for a flood of challenges by defendants in pending and even concluded capital cases. State legislators, meanwhile, are starting to think about how they will legally define retardation.

"They've opened a big door, and there's no way to close it," said Doug Moreau, a district attorney in Louisiana and a member of the National Association of District Attorneys. "Mentally retarded according to who? The justices sent it to the states and said, finish out the rest of it."

Countless debates

Supporters and opponents of capital punishment agree that the practical implication of the court's ruling will be decided over the next several months and years by countless debates in courtrooms and state capitals.

Of the 38 states that have capital punishment, 18 bar the execution of retarded defendants. Although the legal definition of retardation used in those states varies slightly, most require an IQ under 70 and evidence that the person has difficulty navigating daily life.

Legal experts say the most immediate challenges will come in the 20 states, including Virginia and Texas, that allow the execution of retarded defendants.

"The real debate is going to be about how we implement this," said Greg Wiercioch, deputy director of the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit group that provides free legal representation to Texas death row inmates who are pursuing appeals. "How do we determine who really meets the definition and who doesn't?"

Even Daryl Renard Atkins, the Virginia inmate whose case prompted Thursday's opinion, cannot be certain of his fate. Although his life probably will be spared, the justices sent Atkins' case back to the lower courts to decide whether he is legally retarded.

Defense attorneys say Atkins, convicted of shooting an Air Force enlisted man for beer money in 1996, has an IQ of 59. But prosecutors contend that Atkins fully understands his criminal conduct.

"The facts in this case, however, made it clear that Atkins knew exactly what he was doing," Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore said in a statement.

Worried about fakers

Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis and other prosecutors said they worry defendants will fake retardation to escape death row.

"You're going to create a cottage industry of psychologists who are after-the-fact IQ test-givers who will make people mentally retarded who have never been mentally retarded in their lives," Moreau said.

But mental health experts said the combination of a diagnosis by a medical professional and legal standards requiring evidence of mental disability long before a defendant's crime make it nearly impossible to feign retardation.