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

13
of the Flynn effect. We cannot conclude that the district court was clearly
erroneous in discounting Dr. Ackerson’s rejection of the test scores, and in
crediting Dr. Salekin’s interpretation of the scores as reliable and consistent with
the contemporary evidence supporting mental retardation. For example, we agree
with the district court that the fact that Dr. Ackerson “does not know” how the IQ
14
tests were administered is a weak criticism thereof. Moreover, although Dr.
Ackerson rejected the test scores, she nevertheless assumed that Holladay’s IQ
would be low, but postulated that it was low for reasons other than mental
retardation – i.e. a learning disability and a poor home environment. We cannot
conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in rejecting this reasoning.
We agree with the district court that there is little support in the record for Dr.
15
Ackerson’s alternate explanations. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the
district court did not clearly err when it credited Dr. Salekin over Dr. Ackerson and
held that Holladay had demonstrated significantly subaverage intellectual
13
See note 4, supra.
14
If such criticism were sufficient to render unreliable past IQ tests, there would
rarely be IQ tests over time upon which courts could rely. It makes much more sense to evaluate
past tests in light of all of the information available.
15
We note that Dr. Ackerson did not test Holladay for a learning disability. We also
note that Dr. Salekin’s Woodcock-Johnson test indicated global achievement deficits, which
tends to rule out a mere learning disability. Finally, Dr. Ackerson seems to ignore the fact that
poor home environment is a recognized contributor to mental retardation.
24