[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ...

Several months later, the district court issued its opinion disagreeing with the
magistrate judge and finding that Holladay had shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that he was mentally retarded. The court listed all of the facts that
supported a determination that Holladay was retarded and those that supported the
opposite finding. It noted that there was no real dispute that Holladay’s mental
deficiencies began before he turned eighteen. Next, the court examined the
evidence that Holladay had significant limitations in intellectual functioning or, in
other words, a qualifyingly low IQ. This, the court found, Holladay had met by a
preponderance of the evidence by presenting eleven test scores whose mean was
distinctly below 70. The court criticized Dr. Ackerson’s approach towards the test
results because she rejected their reliability and yet did not test Holladay herself.
Turning to adaptive functioning, the court noted first that both experts
agreed that Holladay had substantial deficiencies in academics. Then the court
discussed the evidence supporting its finding that Holladay had substantial
adaptive deficiencies in work, and stated that it was satisfied that Holladay also had
proved that he had deficiencies in other areas.
The court also expressed its dissatisfaction with Dr. Ackerson’s analysis of
adaptive functioning. Dr. Ackerson had testified that Holladay’s condition could
be explained by his home environment and treatment rather than mental
11