Share This Page

Supreme Court to debate mental disability in Fla. death penalty case

| Monday, Oct. 21, 2013, 8:21 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Freddie Lee Hall has survived Florida's death row for decades since he was convicted and sentenced for a 1978 murder.

Now the Supreme Court will use his case to judge the state's strict standard for determining when a convicted criminal's mental disability is severe enough to rule out the death penalty.

On Monday, the high court announced that it will hear Hall's challenge to Florida's rule that a convicted criminal must have a tested IQ of 69 or lower in order to be deemed intellectually disabled. This determination is a matter of life or death, as the Supreme Court has ruled previously that the intellectually disabled — formerly referred to as the mentally retarded — cannot face the death penalty.

“I'm very pleased they will be taking the case up,” said Eric Pinkard, Hall's Tampa-based appellate attorney. “The Florida definition leads to the possibility that the mentally retarded will be executed.”

Whitney Ray, the press secretary to Florida Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, said in a statement that Florida courts had found that Hall “is not intellectually disabled. We will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Hall's sentence.”

Pinkard argues that Florida's explicit definition, which allows the execution of someone with a tested IQ of 70 or above, fails to account for standard measurement error. The Supreme Court itself, in the 2002 decision protecting the intellectually disabled from execution, declared that an IQ between 70 and 75 is typically considered the cutoff score.

The sixteenth of 17 children, Hall was “tortured by his mother and abused by his neighbors,” according to a 1993 dissenting opinion in the Florida Supreme Court. He had an IQ of 60 and was “functionally illiterate and has the short-term memory of a first-grader,” the dissenting opinion observed. In later years, though, Hall's IQ was variously measured at 71 and 73.

Hall and Mack Ruffin Jr. were charged in the Feb. 21, 1978, murders of Karol Lea Hurst, a 21-year-old housewife who was seven months pregnant, and Hernando County Deputy Sheriff Lonnie Coburn. According to a court summary, Hall and Ruffin collaborated in kidnapping Hurst in her own car from a Pantry Pride supermarket parking lot in Leesburg, Fla. They drove to a wooded area, where, Hall told investigators, Ruffin beat, sexually assaulted and shot Hurst.

Shortly thereafter, prosecutors say, Coburn confronted the men and was killed with his own gun.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.