Danny Hill v. Carl Anderson, Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• combining petitioner's Atkins claim, raised for the first time on appeal, with habeas petition at issue in appeal
• remanding defendant’s claim to state courts to consider Atkins issue even though jury con- sidered evidence of mental retardation as mitigating factor in sentencing
• remanding Hill’s Atkins habeas claim to the Ohio state courts to “develop Nos. 02-5032; 08-5644 Black v. Bell Page 15 [their] own procedures for determining whether a particular claimant is retarded and ineligible for death”
• remanding this case to the Ohio courts so that Hill could exhaust his Atkins claim, while recognizing that the “Ohio courts reviewing his case have [already] concluded that Danny Hill is retarded and voluminous expert testimony supported this conclusion” (citation omitted)
• stating that Atkins applies retroactively
• “Ohio should have the opportunity to develop its own procedures for determining whether a particular claimant is retarded and ineligible for death”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).