United States Fifth Circuit

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed where, assuming without deciding that petitioner's evidence regarding his alleged mental retardation rebutted the presumption of correctness that attached to the state habeas court’s decision to credit the government's expert's testimony, petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because even disregarding that testimony, he could not meet his burden of showing that the state court’s finding that he was not mentally retarded was either an unreasonable application of Atkins or an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/01/2010
• Published 11/01/2010

Judges

• Carolyn D. King

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel