Hill, Jr. v. Humphrey, No. 08-15444 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseIn this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 2254, the sole legal issue before the en banc court was whether the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Head v. Hill - that Georgia's statutory reasonable standard for capital defendants' mental retardation claims did not violate the Eighth Amendment - was contrary to clearly established federal law, as announced in Atkins v. Virginia. Because there was no specific, much less "clearly established" by Supreme Court precedent, federal rule regarding the burden of proof for mental retardation claims, section 2254 mandated that the court leave the Georgia Supreme Court decision alone. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 18, 2010.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.