A recent filing in Missouri courts for Ernest Johnson highlighted the use of clinical standards in other cases by the courts when determining whether a person has an intellectual disability and reinforces the arguments made in Ernest Johnson’s petition that is currently pending in Missouri courts.

Alvin Bernal Jackson is a person on death row in Arkansas. Recently, a fourth appeal regarding relief on the basis that Alvin Jackson is intellectually disabled and therefore inelegible for the death penalty mirrors the same systemic failures to protect individuals who have intellectual disabilities in Missouri from execution. For Mr. Jackson, a federal district court found him to be intellectually disabled, noting that prior determinations reaffirmed the reasoning for “guidance on how to properly evaluate intellectual disability claims under Atkins v Virginia.”

In Ernest Johnson’s filing to the Supreme Court of Missouri, five reasons were noted as relevant for the court's considerations per Jackson.

1. the decision in Jackson emphasized the reliance on clinical guidance in assessing whether an individual is intellectually disabled (“ID”) for purposes of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S.  204 (2002); 
2. the Eighth Circuit relies on the Flynn effect to consider artificial testing  inflation for historical IQ scores; 
3. the Eighth Circuit rejects the State’s argument that a single full-scale IQ test outside the range for intellectual disability indicates an individual  cannot be considered ID; 
4. the Eighth Circuit affirmed reliance on family and/or caregiver testimony for evaluating adaptive strengths; and 
5. the Eighth Circuit affirmed reliance on adaptive deficits – not strengths – when assessing whether an individual is intellectually disabled. 

Each issue is significant to the Missouri Supreme Court's consideration of Ernest Johnson’s Rule 91 petition. 

This recent decision in Jackson v Pane showcases such use of clinical practices in evaluating and determining Mr. Jackson’s intellectual disability. By using clinical standards as a guide within the criminal legal system, courts were able to avoid wrongfully executing Mr. Jackson. The Eighth Circuit Court in the Western District of Missouri, the same courts and persons responsible for evaluating Ernest Johnson’s appeals, should follow the clinical standards in evaluating Ernest’s intellectual disability.

To disregard such clinical standards used to protect those with intellectual disability from wrongful death sentences and execution would only further the failures of the court to uphold the constitutional protections for Ernest Johnson per Atkins v Virginia. 

You can take action today to advocate for Ernest by visiting www.madpmo.org and download our toolkit where you will find numerous action items to further the message to stop the unconstitutional execution of Ernest Johnson. For questions or aid in taking direct action to advocate for Ernest Johnson please contact info@madpmo.org.