Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Daryl
Renard
ATKINS
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Robbery
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder: August 16,
1996
Date of birth:
November 6,
1977
Victim profile: Eric Nesbitt,
21
Method of murder:
Shooting
Location: York County, Virginia, USA
Status: Sentenced to death on February 14, 1998. Commuted to
life on June 8, 2006
On August 16, 1996,
Daryl Atkins and William Jones spent most of the day drinking and
smoking marijuana at the house Atkins shared with this father.
Later that evening,
after Atkins borrowed a gun from a friend, he and Jones went to the
convenience store to buy some more beer. Lacking money, Atkins started
panhandling. At around 11:30 p.m., Eric Nesbitt went to the store.
When Nesbitt prepared
to leave the parking lot in his truck, Atkins hijacked the truck at
gunpoint. Jones drove, Atkins was a passenger, and Nesbitt was kept
hostage. They stole $60 from Nesbitt's wallet, and after discovering
Nesbitt's bank card, they proceeded to the branch of a local bank where
Atkins forced Nesbitt to withdraw $200 from the drive-through ATM.
Jones then drove the
truck to a local school where he and the defendant discussed what to do
with Nesbitt. Jones urged that they just tie Nesbitt up and leave him.
Instead, at Atkins' suggestion they drove to a secluded area that he
knew. Atkins ordered Nesbitt out of the truck and shot Nesbitt to death.
The autopsy showed that Nesbitt had eight different bullet wounds. The
two were subsequently arrested.
Jones testified against
Atkins, and Atkins was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to
death. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but reversed
the sentence because of an improper sentencing verdict form.
At retrial, Dr. Evan
Nelson, a forensic psychologist, testified that the defendant's full
scale IQ of 59 meant that he was mildly mentally retarded. This
diagnosis was also based upon the defendant's inability to function
independently as compared to the average person.
Dr. Nelson also "admitted
that Atkins' capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct
was impaired, but not destroyed; that Atkins understood that it was
wrong to shoot Nesbitt; and that Atkins meets the general criteria for
the diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder."
The jury also heard the
testimony of the state's witness, Dr. Stanton Samenow, a forensic
clinical psychologist. He " 'sharply disagreed' " with Dr. Nelson's
diagnosis that the defendant was mildly retarded. He instead concluded
that Atkins had at least average intelligence. This conclusion was based
upon "Atkins' vocabulary, knowledge of current events, and other factors
from the Wechsler Memory Scale, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and
Thematic Appreciation Test."
As one example, Atkins
knew that John F. Kennedy was president in 1961. He also knew who was
the current governor of Virginia, as well as the last two presidents.
The defendant was again sentenced to death. The Virginia Supreme Court
affirmed.
The opinion analyzed
Atkins' alleged retardation under its proportionality review, where it
held that the death sentence was not rendered disproportionate due to
the defendant's intelligence.
UPDATE:
The
convicted killer whose case prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish
the death penalty for the mentally retarded will not himself benefit, as
a jury on Friday ruled he was not retarded. Daryl Atkins is the death
row inmate whose case led to the Supreme Court’s ban on executing the
mentally retarded.
Atkins was given a
death sentence for the robbery and murder of 21-year-old Airman 1st
Class Eric Nesbitt nine years ago. Atkins was 18 years old when he and
accomplice William Jones killed Nesbitt for beer money. Nesbitt was
abducted outside a convenience store and taken to an automatic teller
machine where he forced to withdraw money. Nesbitt was then driven down
a desolate road and shot eight times. Jones testified against Atkins and
received a life sentence.
Three years ago the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Atkins’ case that executing the mentally retarded
is unconstitutional, but did not specify whether Atkins himself fit this
category, and left it up to the states to determine whether inmates are
retarded.
This week, Atkins was
found mentally competent by a Virginia jury, and York County Circuit
Court Judge Prentis Smiley Jr. immediately scheduled his execution for
December 2. "It's ironic, but as a legal matter, this was always a
possibility," said Robert D. Dinerstein, an American University law
professor.
Jurors deliberated for
13 hours over a two day period before finding that Atkins was not
mentally retarded and is therefore eligible for execution. During seven
days of testimony, jurors -- whose sole task was to determine whether
Atkins is mentally retarded -- did not learn details about the slaying
of Eric Nesbitt, 21, or even hear his name.
Instead, they heard
from psychologists who administered a battery of IQ and other tests and
examined Atkins's school and prison records. They also relied on the
testimony of family, friends and teachers who were asked to recall the
most mundane details of Atkins's daily life. Was he able to cook chicken?
Drive a car? Mow the lawn? Dress himself appropriately? Write rap lyrics?
For example, jurors
learned that Atkins, when interrupted during a meal at prison, placed
his soup bowl in a sink containing some hot water to keep it warm.
Prosecutors portrayed it as a clever solution for a man with no access
to a kitchen. But a defense expert countered that Atkins didn't seem to
understand that the water soon would cool and that his fix was only
temporary.
In Virginia, lawmakers
have defined a mentally retarded offender as someone with an IQ below 70
who has "significant limitations in adaptive behavior" that were evident
before age 18. Atkins has scored 59, 67, 74 and 76 on IQ tests,
according to testimony.
Eileen Addison, the
York County prosecutor, said she agreed with the decision regarding
capital punishment and the mentally retarded but said that Atkins was
“the wrong case”. Addison said, “We never disagreed that he was probably
a slow learner. That’s not the same as being mentally retarded.” Atkins’
lawyers felt that they had established their client’s mental retardation.
Atkins' attorney Richard Burr said, “People in this community rejected
that. We don’t know why.”
After the verdict,
Atkins, now 27, flashed a peace sign and blew a kiss to his family as he
was led from the courtroom. Testimony in the mental retardation case
centered on Atkins’ mental capabilities and the crime was never brought
into play.
The defense claimed
that Atkins was so mentally challenged that he was cut from his high
school football team because he couldn’t understand the plays, but the
state blamed his problems in school on drugs and alcohol, and said the
claim of mental retardation was a ploy to avoid execution. said the
claim of mental retardation was a ploy to avoid execution. "None of his
teachers, friends or family believed Daryl was mentally retarded until
he was facing the death penalty," Addison said in her opening statement.
Both sides called expert witnesses who disagreed on whether Atkins fell
into the category of mentally retarded.
An IQ of 70 or lower by
the age of 18 is required to be considered mentally retarded in
Virginia, which also takes into account social skills and the ability to
care for oneself. Atkins had scores of 59, 67, 74 and 76 on IQ tests,
but they were given when he was older than 18.
Nesbitt’s family
attended the trial, and his mother, Mary Sloan, leaned back after
hearing the verdict, visibly relieved that her son's killer will return
to death row. She declined to be interviewed outside the courthouse
Friday. “It was distressing to them that we went through two weeks never
mentioning their son’s name,” Addison said.
Atkins’ lawyers said
they planned to appeal. York County's top prosecutor, Eileen M. Addison,
who twice convinced other juries that Atkins deserved the death penalty,
said she had never doubted that Atkins knew right from wrong.
Drug abuse, laziness
and a bad attitude were to blame for Atkins's poor grades in school and
problems in life, she indicated. "We've never disagreed that he is
probably a slow learner and he is not of high intelligence, but that is
not the same as mentally retarded," Addison said. "I do agree with the
Supreme Court's decision, but this was the wrong case."
Lorraine Batchelor, who
taught Atkins at an alternative school, said she saw a teenager who
struggled because he came late to class and didn't try to complete his
work. Batchelor testified that Atkins blamed drugs for his disinterest
and that there was "no indication whatsoever that he was incapable."
Although the jury learned nothing about Nesbitt's slaying, future juries
will not work in a similar void.
Under Virginia law,
defendants claiming mental retardation would go to trial, and, if
convicted, the same jury would decide whether the defendants' claims
were true. Defendants in Virginia must prove mental retardation by a
preponderance of the evidence, a less-rigorous standard than that used
to determine guilt.
ProDeathPenalty.com
Daryl Renard Atkins
York County, Virginia
Scheduled Execution Date: Atkins was found mentally
competent by a Virginia jury on Friday 5 August, 2005. A judge
immediately scheduled his execution for December 2, 2005.
Date of Offense: August 17, 1996
DOB: 1978
18 at time of offense
Race: Black
IQ: 59
In June, 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court
found the execution of persons with mental retardation to be
unconstitutional. Mr. Atkins still sits on death row in Virginia. It was
for a jury to decide if he was indeed mentally retarded and thus not
able to be executed. Recently, defence attorneys failed to convince a
jury that Daryl Atkins was mentally retarded. The attorneys are planning
to appeal.
Case Overview
On the night of August 16, 1996, Daryl Atkins and
William Jones went to a convenience store to buy beer. Atkins was, at
that time, in possession of a firearm that was concealed behind his belt.
He asked several people around the store for money. Eric Nesbitt, a 21-year-old
airman stationed at Langley Air Force Base, entered the store and had a
short conversation with Atkins.
Upon exiting the store, Atkins and Jones forced
themselves into Nesbitt's truck. Atkins instructed Nesbitt to give him
money from his wallet and then forced him to withdraw money from an
automatic teller machine. Atkins and Jones took Nesbitt to a deserted
field in Yorktown and shot him eight times.
Atkins has presented testimony that his overall IQ is
59, his verbal being 64 and his performance IQ 60. Based on these scores,
the forensic psychologist for the defense, Dr. Evan Nelson, has stated
that Atkins falls in the range of being "mildly mentally retarded."
Persons with an IQ of 59 have the cognitive ability of a child between 9
and 12 years of age. Nelson testified that Atkins did understand the
criminal nature of his conduct and that he meets the general criteria
for the diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder.
Doctors for both the prosecution and defense agreed
that mental retardation is based upon a combination of IQ and adaptive
behavior. As asserted by the American Association on Mental Retardation,
an individual is considered to have mental retardation based on the
following three criteria: intellectual functioning (IQ) level below
70-75; significant limitations exists in two or more adaptive skill
areas; and the condition is present from childhood, which is defined as
age 18 or less. (AAMR, 1992).
Dr. Nelson testified that Atkins had a limited
capacity for adaptive behavior. He pointed to his school records, which
showed that he scored below the 20th percentile in almost every
standardized test he took. He failed the 2nd and 10th grades.
In high school, Atkins was placed in lower-level
classes for slow learners and classes with intensive instruction for
remedial deficits. His grade point average in high school was 1.26 out
of a possible 4.0. Atkins did not graduate from high school.
Dr. Nelson testified that Atkins' academic records
"are crystal clear that he has been an academic failure since the very
beginning." Dr. Samenow for the prosecution did not evaluate Atkins'
academic records or anyone who had observed him prior to his
incarceration.
On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held in
Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of persons with mental
retardation was in fact unconstitutional.
Background:
In Penry v. Lynaugh in 1989 ( 492 US 584),
the US Supreme Court held that the execution of persons with mental
retardation was not in violation of the Eight Amendment, instead mental
retardation would be seen as a mitigating factor.
In 2002, the Supreme Court again visited the issue of
capital punishment and mental retardation, this time the Court held in
Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of persons with mental
retardation was in fact unconstitutional. This landmark ruling reflects
a growing recognition and consensus that those with mental retardation
simply do not possess the requisite degree of culpability and
consequently, a sentence of death is contrary to the principle of
proportionality.
A person with mental retardation cannot fully
appreciate the consequence of their actions or comprehend the punishment
that awaits them. Often men and women with mental retardation lack the
capacity to understand abstract concepts including those of death,
waiving of rights, particularly in regard to Miranda, and the right
against self-incrimination, more commonly known as the right to silence.
The implications of this permeate every aspect of
their participation within the criminal justice procedure to the effect
that they lack the capacity to fully assist counsel in their own defense.
The Atkins v. Virginia ruling ostensibly
prevents the execution of those persons with mental retardation. However
upon closer scrutiny the decision has profound limitations; Inherent
within this decision are a number of problems, one of the most
significant lies in the determination of the person as mentally retarded.
Whilst stating that such executions are unconstitutional, the Court did
not expound upon the definition of mental retardation. Instead the Court
left this decision to the individual states and thus in the vast
majority of cases the jury to decide.
The case of John Paul Penry exemplifies the
limitations of this decision. Just two weeks after the decision in
Atkins, John Paul Penry was sentenced to death for the third time
despite being consistently assessed from the age of six as having mental
retardation and an IQ of 50-63. The Texan judge and jury concluded that
Penry was not learning disabled.
The concept of mental retardation is both illusory
and elusive: juries have proven to be reluctant to accept that the
accused has mental retardation, instead believing it to be easily faked.
Indeed, despite clear evidence to the contrary a juror in Penry's re-sentencing
hearing stated that to him it was obvious Penry was faking his mental
retardation.
This belief is further echoed within the dissent of
Justice Scalia in Atkins who stated that mental retardation
could be "feigned," and the enhanced risk of wrongful execution was "laughable."
The exact number of people with mental retardation
facing death sentences or languishing on death row is unknown due to the
very nature of the disability: Identifying and qualifying mental
retardation is exceedingly difficult for a variety of reasons. Whilst
the decision in Atkins is welcome, the problems associated with the
interaction of law and mental disabilities have not yet been resolved.
Daryl Renard Atkins
Date
of Birth: 11/6/77
Sex: Male
Race: Black
Entered the Row: April 28, 1998
District: YorkCounty
Conviction:
Capitol murder
VirginiaDOC Inmate Number: 255956
A jury convicted and
recommended that Daryl Atkins be executed for
theAug. 16, 1996 murder of Eric Nesbitt on
February 14, 1998.
Atkins and his friend, William Jones, were drinking and smoking crack at
Atkins's home when they decided to walk to a nearby store to buy more
beer. At the parking lot of
the store, Atkins told Jones that he did not have
enough money and would panhandle to get the money for the beer; instead, Atkins and Jones abducted Eric
Nesbitt and drove him to a field where Atkins allegedly shot and killed
him.
During
the investigation of
the crime, Atkins made a statement to police where he
claimed that Jones was the
triggerman. However, at trial, the jury found Atkins guilty of capital murder.
During sentencing, the jury
found both the future
dangerousness and
the vileness aggravating factors.
In
direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, counsel for Atkins raised nineteen
claims. Although the court
found that most of the claims
were either procedurally
defaulted or without merit, on
Feb. 26, 1999, the court held that the use of an incorrect jury verdict form constituted
reversible error with respect to the
imposition of the death
penalty. The court then
affirmed Atkins's capital murder conviction but overturned
the
death sentence and remanded the
case to the trial court for a
new penalty proceeding.
During jury instructions at the
penalty phase of
the trial, prosecutors erred when
they failed to disclose on
the instruction form that absence of
aggravating circumstances (future dangerousness
AND vileness), the law REQUIRED that they sentence Adkins to life in prison without
parole.
After a three-day sentencing hearing, a different
jury re-sentenced Atkins to death in August, 1999; and a little over
a year later in a 2-1 decision, the
Supreme Court of Virginia upheld Adkins’ conviction. Defense was
arguing that
the circuit court once again erred
because they denied
Adkins
the right to present his mental
retardation as mitigating evidence during
the second penalty phase trial. At
the time of the crime, Adkins had an IQ of 59.
In
March 2000, Atkins' lawyers petitioned theU.S. Supreme Court to hear
the case on
the basis of pretrial intelligence tests that showed
Adkins was retarded. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court remanded
the Adkins case to the
circuit court and ruled that executing mentally retarded felons was
unconstitutional. They left it up to Virginia to determine whether
Atkins is retarded or not. Pursuant to the
high court’s decision, theVirginia Supreme Court
ruled in June 2003 that a new jury would decide Adkins fate.
On
Aug. 5, 2005,
jurors in YorkCounty decided that Adkins
was not mentally retarded. Virginia law defines mental retardation as
someone with a score below 70 on a standardized IQ tests before
the age of 18. Adkins was not tested before 18 and
registered subsequent scores of 59, 74 and and 76.
On
June 8, 2005,
theVirginia Supreme Court
threw out Atkins’s death sentence and ordered a new competency trial.
The jurors who ruled that Atkins was not mentally retarded at
the second trial had been told that
Atkins had earlier been sentenced to death.
Atkins v. Virginia,
536 U.S. 304 (2002),
is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled 6-3, that executing the mentally retarded
violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual
punishments.
The case
About 2 in the morning on August 16,
1996, following a day spent together drinking alcohol
and smoking marijuana, Daryl Atkins and his accomplice,
William Jones, drove to a convenience store where they
abducted Eric Nesbitt, an airman from nearby Langley Air
Force Base.
Unsatisfied with the $60 they found
in his wallet, Atkins and Jones drove Nesbitt in his own
vehicle to a nearby ATM and forced him to withdraw a
further $200. In spite of Nesbitt's pleas, the two
abductors then drove him to an isolated location, where
he was shot eight times, killing him.
Footage of Atkins and Jones in the
vehicle with Nesbitt was captured on the ATM's CCTV
camera, and further forensic evidence implicating the
two was found in Nesbitt's abandoned vehicle. The two
suspects were quickly tracked down and arrested. In
custody, each man claimed that the other had pulled the
trigger. Atkins' version of the events, however, was
found to contain a number of inconsistencies.
Doubts concerning Atkins's testimony
were strengthened when a cell-mate claimed that Atkins
had confessed to him that he had shot Nesbitt. A deal of
life imprisonment was negotiated with Jones in return
for his full testimony against Atkins. The jury decided
that Jones's version of events was the more coherent and
credible, and convicted Atkins of capital murder.
During the penalty phase of the trial,
the defense presented Atkins's school records and the
results of an IQ test carried out by clinical
psychologist Dr. Evan Nelson, that placed his score at
59. On this basis they proposed that he was "mildly
mentally retarded". Atkins was nevertheless sentenced to
death.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of
Virginia affirmed the conviction but reversed the
sentence after finding that an improper sentencing
verdict form had been used. At retrial, the prosecution
proved two aggravating factors under Virginia law --
that Atkins posed a risk of "future dangerousness,"
based on a string of previous violent convictions, and
that the offense was committed in a vile manner.
The state's witness, Dr Stanton
Samenow, countered the defense's arguments that Atkins
was mentally retarded, stating that Atkins's vocabulary,
general knowledge and behavior suggested that he
possessed at least average intelligence. As a result,
Atkins's death sentence was upheld.
The Virginia Supreme Court
subsequently affirmed the sentence based on a prior
Supreme Court decision, Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302
(1989). Justice Cynthia D. Kinser authored the five-member
majority. Justices Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. and
Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr. each authored dissenting
opinions and joined in each other's dissent.
Because of what it perceived to be a
shift in the judgments of state legislatures as to
whether the mentally retarded are appropriate candidates
for execution in the thirteen years since Penry was
decided, the Supreme Court agreed to review Atkins'
death sentence. The Court heard oral arguments in the
case on February 20, 2002.
The
ruling
The Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution generally forbids cruel and unusual
punishments. In the ruling it was stated that, unlike
other provisions of the Constitution, the Eighth
Amendment should be interpreted in light of the "evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society."
The best evidence on this score was
determined to be the judgment of state legislatures.
Accordingly, the Court had previously found that the
death penalty was inappropriate for the crime of rape,
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), or for those
convicted of felony murder who neither themselves killed,
attempted to kill, or intended to kill, Enmund v.
Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982).
The Court found that the Eighth
Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty in
these cases because "most of the legislatures that have
recently addressed the matter" have rejected the death
penalty for these offenders, and the Court will
generally defer to the judgments of those bodies.
The Court then described how a
national consensus that the mentally retarded should not
be executed had emerged. In 1986, Georgia was the first
state to outlaw the execution of the mentally retarded.
Congress followed two years later, and the next year
Maryland joined these two jurisdictions.
Thus, when the Court confronted the
issue in Penry in 1989, the Court could not say that a
national consensus against executing the mentally
retarded had emerged. Over the next twelve years,
nineteen more states exempted the mentally retarded from
capital punishment under their laws, bringing the total
number of states to twenty-one, plus the federal
government.
In light of the "consistency of
direction of change" toward a prohibition on the
execution of the mentally retarded, and the relative
rarity of such executions in states that still allow it,
the Court proclaimed that a "national consensus has
developed against it." The Court, however, left it to
individual states to make the difficult decision
regarding what determines mental retardation.
Also, the "relationship between
mental retardation and the penological purposes served
by the death penalty" justifies a conclusion that
executing the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual
punishment that the Eighth Amendment should forbid.
In other words, unless it can be
shown that executing the mentally retarded promotes the
goals of retribution and deterrence, doing so is nothing
more than "purposeless and needless imposition of pain
and suffering," making the death penalty cruel and
unusual in those cases. Being mentally retarded means
that a person not only has substandard intellectual
functioning but also significant limitations in adaptive
skills such as communication, self-care, and self-direction.
These deficiencies typically manifest
before the age of eighteen. Although they can know the
difference between right and wrong, these deficiencies
mean they have a lesser ability to learn from experience,
engage in logical reasoning, and understand the
reactions of others. This means that inflicting the
death penalty on one mentally retarded individual is
less likely to deter other mentally retarded individuals
from committing crimes.
As for retribution, society's
interest in seeing that a criminal get his "just
desserts" means that the death penalty must be confined
to the "most serious" of murders, not simply the average
murder. The goal of retribution is not served by
imposing the death penalty on a group of people who have
a significantly lesser capacity to understand why they
are being executed.
Because the mentally retarded are not
able to communicate with the same sophistication as the
average offender, there is a greater likelihood that
their deficiency in communicative ability will be
interpreted by juries as a lack of remorse for their
crimes. They typically make poor witnesses, being more
prone to suggestion and willing to "confess" in order to
placate or please their questioner. As such, there is a
greater risk that the jury may impose the death penalty
despite the existence of evidence that suggests that a
lesser penalty should be imposed.
In light of the "evolving standards
of decency" that the Eighth Amendment demands, the fact
that the goals of retribution and deterrence are not
served as well in the execution of the mentally retarded,
and the heightened risk that the death penalty will be
imposed erroneously, the Court concluded that the Eighth
Amendment forbids the execution of the mentally retarded.
In dissent, Justices Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist
argued that in spite of the increased number of states
which had outlawed the execution of the mentally
retarded, there was no clear national consensus, and
that even given if there were, there was no basis in the
Eighth Amendment for using such measures of opinion to
determine what is "cruel and unusual".
Justice Antonin Scalia commented in
his dissent that "seldom has an opinion of this court
rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views
of its members". The citing of an amicus brief from the
European Union also drew criticism from Chief Justice
Rehnquist, who denounced the "Court's decision to place
weight on foreign laws."
Subsequent Developments
Ironically, although Atkins's case
and ruling may have saved other mentally retarded
inmates from the death penalty, a jury in Virginia
decided in July 2005 that he was intelligent enough to
be executed as the constant contact he had with his
lawyers had intellectually stimulated him and raised his
IQ above 70, making him competent to be put to death
under Virginia law. The prosecution had argued that his
poor school performance was caused by his use of alcohol
and drugs, and that his lower scores in earlier IQ tests
were tainted. His execution date was set for December 2,
2005 but was later stayed.
However, in January 2008, his
sentence was commuted to life in prison due to evidence
of prosecutorial misconduct in the original case.
