U.S. justices confront death row inmate's intellectual disability

By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared unsure how to rule in the case of a convicted cop killer on Louisiana's death row who a lower court deemed to be intellectually disabled and therefore not eligible for execution. During a one-hour oral argument, some of the nine justices indicated they would be willing to rule in favor of inmate Kevan Brumfield, likely sparing him from execution, although it would likely be a narrow decision affecting only his case. Brumfield, 42, was convicted in 1995 of murdering an off-duty Baton Rouge police officer during an attempted robbery at a bank when a grocery store manager was depositing money. The question before the Supreme Court is whether a federal district court judge had the legal authority to hold a special hearing on Brumfield's intellectual capacity. A federal law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act limits when federal courts can scrutinize state court judgments like the one in this case in which some evidence was presented in a Louisiana court that the state says indicates Brumfield is not intellectually disabled. In February 2012, a federal court in Louisiana found that Brumfield was intellectually disabled and said he should not be executed, based on a 2002 Supreme Court precedent that outlawed the death penalty in such instances. Brumfield's lawyers point to evidence introduced at the time of his sentencing showing that, among other things, he had a fourth-grade reading level and needed assistance to function normally. But in a February 2014 decision, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the hearing should not have been held, noting evidence in the state court proceedings indicating Brumfield was not intellectually disabled. The state of Louisiana has said Brumfield had failed to show sufficient evidence to warrant a special hearing on his intellectual capacity, saying the issue should have been raised earlier in the legal process. The high court's liberal justices were most sympathetic to Brumfield. Justice Elena Kagan said the state court's findings concerning Brumfield's intellectual capacity was "just wrong." Of the court's conservatives, Justice Samuel Alito said Brumfield's lawyer had a "strong argument" based purely on the facts of the case but some of his fellow conservatives sounded more skeptical. A ruling is due by the end of June. The case is Brumfield v. Cain, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1433. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)