The Supreme Court today threw out a Texas death sentence in the case of Smith v. Texas, 04-5323. There were two dissenters: Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The problem in the case was that under Texas law at the time, the jury was not allowed to consider all of the evidence in determining a life or death sentence. The Supreme Court ruled that the jury should have been allowed to consider Smith's learning disability and other mitigating evidence.

Smith argued that jurors weren't allowed to consider evidence including that he was 19 at the time of the Taco Bell robbery, that he had a troubled home life and that he had a low IQ and learning disabilities. A Texas court rejected the claim, saying that wasn't relevant because there was no link between the murder and his diminished capacity.

... "There is no question that a jury might well have considered (Smith's) IQ scores and history of participation in special-education classes as a reason to impose a sentence more lenient than death," the court wrote in Monday's decision

Texas has since modified its statute and now allows for juries to consider such evidence. But, we're told, over 100 prisoners were executed under the old, now unconstitutional statute. [we'll try and find a link to support this.]