![[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ...](https://img.yumpu.com/22422353/33/500x640/publish-in-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-.jpg)
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ...
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ... [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ...
self-direction, community living, and health and safety skills as areas in which he had deficiencies. Beginning with communication, Dr. Salekin noted that Holladay was very tangential during her interviews with him and had to be redirected frequently; Holladay’s former attorney also reported problems with keeping Holladay on track and an examining psychiatrist in 1990 also observed this trait. Additionally, Dr. Salekin cited one of the guards on death row and the same attorney for their statements that they had to keep things very simple in order for Holladay to understand; Dr. Salekin experienced that in her interview as well. Turning to Holladay’s social skills, Dr. Salekin noted that Holladay did not seem to understand the social awkwardness of his admission of bestiality or his accident with the enema. One source reported to her that Holladay frequently interrupts people and begins talking about unrelated topics while in conversation with others. Another source, Holladay’s sister, reported that he often inappropriately flirted with her friends and got too close to people. Finally, she pointed to his sex offenses as evidence of very poor social skills. With regard to his employment history, Dr. Salekin noted that it was extremely sparse, and that most of his jobs were obtained by others for him. All of his jobs were menial, as would be expected for someone in the mild mentally retarded range. Dovetailing with employment is Holladay’s self-direction, or lack 32
thereof: Dr. Salekin testified that Holladay lacked any self-direction and that his criminality was more of a means of getting his needs met. However, she noted that he constantly was caught so he was not a very successful criminal. Turning to health and safety, Dr. Salekin cited his decisions to climb under moving trains as a child, and to break into buildings when it was obvious to most people that there would be an alarm; she also noted that he did not stop when ordered to do so by officers and so ended up getting shot. Additionally, she wondered if he would be able to manage his diabetes if he were not in a highly structured environment because she thinks that he is too impulsive. Finally, she testified that there was no evidence that Holladay was capable of living on his own: during most of his adulthood, he moved in and out of his parents’ home and relied on them and his wives for support. It did not appear that he had any responsibilities for maintaining a home or that he had those skills. The district court noted initially that both Dr. Salekin and Dr. Ackerson agreed that Holladay had substantial adaptive deficiencies in the area of academics. 463 F.Supp.2d at 1343. The district court then addressed the area of work, and found “overwhelming evidence that Petitioner has never done and has never been capable of doing any work more than menial tasks.” Id. The court had earlier described examples of Holladay’s limitations with regard to work: e.g. in helping in 33
- Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEA
- Page 3 and 4: I. BACKGROUND Holladay was convicte
- Page 5 and 6: navigate. The few jobs that Glenn h
- Page 7 and 8: experience as a site coordinator fo
- Page 9 and 10: By contrast, Dr. Ackerson testified
- Page 11 and 12: Several months later, the district
- Page 13 and 14: Turning to Alabama law, the Alabama
- Page 15 and 16: must constantly have in mind that t
- Page 17 and 18: Scale, for a Full Scale IQ of 65. O
- Page 20 and 21: elied on the verbal score of 62 to
- Page 22 and 23: in light of the later tests and in
- Page 24 and 25: 13 of the Flynn effect. We cannot c
- Page 26 and 27: parents and placed in foster care.
- Page 28 and 29: would become confused when asked so
- Page 30 and 31: oth the trial and depositions, whic
- Page 34 and 35: his father’s painting business, h
- Page 36 and 37: 17 retardation and that was the sta
- Page 38 and 39: and substantial deficits in adaptiv
thereof: Dr. Salekin testified that Holladay lacked any self-direction and that his<br />
criminality was more of a means of getting his needs met. However, she noted that<br />
he constantly was caught so he was not a very successful criminal.<br />
Turning to health and safety, Dr. Salekin cited his decisions to climb under<br />
moving trains as a child, and to break into buildings when it was obvious to most<br />
people that there would be an alarm; she also noted that he did not stop when<br />
ordered to do so by officers and so ended up getting shot. Additionally, she<br />
wondered if he would be able to manage his diabetes if he were not in a highly<br />
structured environment because she thinks that he is too impulsive. Finally, she<br />
testified that there was no evidence that Holladay was capable of living on his own:<br />
during most of his adulthood, he moved in and out of his parents’ home and relied<br />
on them and his wives for support. It did not appear that he had any<br />
responsibilities for maintaining a home or that he had those skills.<br />
The district court noted initially that both Dr. Salekin and Dr. Ackerson<br />
agreed that Holladay had substantial adaptive deficiencies in the area of academics.<br />
463 F.Supp.2d at 1343. The district court then addressed the area of work, and<br />
found “overwhelming evidence that Petitioner has never done and has never been<br />
capable of doing any work more than menial tasks.” Id. The court had earlier<br />
described examples of Holladay’s limitations with regard to work: e.g. in helping in<br />
33
Change language