By repeatedly stating its belief that defendant's capital sentence would never be carried out, the post-conviction relief court demonstrated a diminished sense of responsibility, and its findings and conclusions are null and void; based on a de novo review of the PCR court's factual findings, its denial for relief is affirmed; additionally, it would violate due process to deprive a capital defendant of the opportunity to present expert testimony to support a bona fide claim of mental retardation.
58 minute read