Norwood v. Attorney-General ex rel. Bowen

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that \[pllacing the burden of proof on\ the defendant to prove mental retardation \does not violate constitutional principles\
• adopting the clinical definitions for mental retardation cited by the United States Supreme Court in Atkins, i.e., requiring onset before the age of eighteen
• likening the issue to a trial court's determination of defendant's competency to stand trial
• likening the issue to a trial court's determination of defendant's competency to stand trial
• judicially setting out substantive standards and procedural guidelines for determining Atkins claims \[i]n the absence of a statutory framework to determine mental retardation\
• Atkins was decided after the execution date was set; principle of res judicata did not bar the claim because petitioner had not been afforded the opportunity to fully litigate the issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).