When the State Seeks Death: The Battle to Prove Intellectual Disability

Imagine facing the ultimate punishment—the death penalty—while battling an intellectual disability that makes it impossible for you to understand the world like everyone else. For decades, the Constitution has protected such individuals from execution.

However, prosecutors often point to a defendant’s ability to drive a car, use a cell phone, or make jail calls as “proof” that they fake their disability. A new ruling from Miami demonstrates that courts must look deeper than surface-level skills.

The Case: State v. Jackson (December 22, 2025)

Reginald Jackson faced indictment for two counts of First-Degree Murder, Armed Robbery, and Kidnapping for the 2013 killings of a woman and her grandson in Miami-Dade County. The State sought the death penalty.

Jackson’s defense team filed a motion to bar the death penalty, arguing that Jackson met the legal definition of “Intellectually Disabled” under Florida Statute § 921.137. What followed became a battle over what “disability” really means.

The Evidence Battle: What the State Claimed vs. What the Defense Proved

The Jackson case illustrates how prosecutors attack intellectual disability claims by focusing on “strengths” while ignoring documented deficits:

The Three-Prong Test for Intellectual Disability in Florida Capital Cases

To save a client from death row in Florida, the defense must prove three specific elements by “clear and convincing evidence”:

Frequently Asked Questions: Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty

What is the IQ cutoff for the death penalty in Florida?

Generally, an IQ of 70 or below indicates intellectual disability. However, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hall v. Florida ruling, courts must apply the “Standard Error of Measurement” (SEM). Consequently, scores slightly above 70 can still qualify. For example, a measured score of 72 might actually represent a true score of 67, qualifying the defendant for protection.

Can a defendant be executed if they are mentally ill?

“Intellectual Disability” (low IQ with adaptive deficits) differs from “Mental Illness” (conditions like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder). While the Constitution bars executing intellectually disabled individuals, severe mental illness typically serves as mitigation evidence to argue for a life sentence rather than an automatic bar to execution. Therefore, establishing intellectual disability provides stronger protection.

How do you prove a disability existed from childhood?

We conduct exhaustive historical investigation. Specifically, we pull birth records (Jackson’s showed a drug-addicted mother), medical records documenting head injuries or developmental delays, and school IEPs. Additionally, we locate former teachers who remember the student’s struggles. This investigation often spans decades and requires significant resources.

What are “adaptive behavior deficits”?

Adaptive behavior refers to the practical skills needed for daily functioning. Courts examine three domains: Conceptual (reading, writing, math, memory); Social (interpersonal skills, empathy, judgment); and Practical (personal care, job responsibilities, money management). Jackson, for instance, could not cook, needed reminders to bathe, and required his grandmother to read his mail as an adult.

What is the “Standard Error of Measurement” (SEM)?

IQ tests have inherent measurement error—no test produces a perfectly precise score. The SEM accounts for this uncertainty. Under Hall v. Florida (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot use a strict IQ cutoff of 70 without considering the SEM. Consequently, a defendant who scores 72 on a test might have a true IQ of 67, falling within the protected range.

Why do prosecutors focus on “surface skills” like driving or phone use?

Prosecutors attempt to undermine disability claims by highlighting any apparent competence. However, as the Jackson court ruled, the legal standard requires examining deficits, not strengths. Many intellectually disabled individuals can “mask” their disability in short interactions while still lacking the judgment and reasoning required for culpability at the capital level. Performing basic tasks does not negate documented severe deficits.

What is mitigation in a capital case?

Mitigation refers to evidence presented during the penalty phase of a capital trial that argues for a life sentence instead of death. This includes childhood abuse, mental health history, intellectual limitations, trauma, and other factors that explain (not excuse) the defendant’s conduct. Even if a defendant cannot prove intellectual disability under the three-prong test, mitigation evidence can still save their life.

What burden of proof applies to intellectual disability claims?

Florida requires proof by “clear and convincing evidence”—a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. This means the defense must present evidence that makes the existence of intellectual disability highly probable. Therefore, thorough investigation and expert testimony prove essential.

Related:

• Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney – Full-service criminal defense
• Tampa Murder Defense Lawyer – Homicide defense representation
• Why Death Penalty Qualification Matters
• Florida SB 653 Adds New Aggravating Factors
• Mental Health Criminal Defense Tampa – When mental health intersects with criminal charges

De Santus v. State, No. 4D2023-2235 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025)

When Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a murder conviction in De Santus v. State, it exposed a painful truth: even a serious homicide case can collapse when the defense lawyer isn’t prepared. The judges ruled that the attorney’s mistakes made the entire trial fundamentally unfair.

This ruling should make anyone accused of murder stop and ask: how do I choose a homicide attorney in Florida? How do I know my lawyer is truly a homicide attorney—and not just claiming to be one?

What the Defense Attorney Failed to Do

A Case Built on Words, Not Evidence

The Broward County shooting had no DNA, fingerprints, or video evidence. The State relied entirely on one witness. Before trial, that witness admitted to lying—she told a defense investigator that another man, “Gangsta Baby,” had the gun.

Yet the defense attorney never used that prior statement to challenge her credibility. The jury never learned she had recanted. They also never heard that she allegedly tried to extort money from the defendant’s family. Both details could have changed the outcome.

Later, a new witness came forward and testified that the shooter was a light-skinned man in a red jacket—not De Santus. The appellate court concluded the trial had been irreparably tainted by counsel’s failures.

Anyone Can Call Themselves a “Homicide Attorney”

Questions to Ask Before Hiring

Before you trust your future to anyone claiming to be a homicide attorney, ask these questions directly:

1. How many homicide trials have you personally handled from start to verdict?
2. Have you ever obtained a not-guilty verdict in a homicide case?
3. Who will actually stand beside me in court—you, or an associate?
4. What is your record when the State’s evidence seems overwhelming?
5. Are you certified under Florida Supreme Court standards to handle death penalty cases?

If your lawyer hesitates on any of these questions, keep searching.

Homicide Results That Demonstrate Preparation

At The Brancato Law Firm, I don’t just claim experience—I prove it in court:

Roommate Homicide — Not Guilty

A man charged with killing his roommate was acquitted after my direct examination showed the shooting was in self-defense. The jury returned a swift not-guilty verdict.

Grandmother Homicide — Charge Reduced

A grandmother initially charged with murder and aggravated child abuse avoided a life sentence after evidence showed the child’s injuries resulted from CPR efforts. The charge was reduced to child neglect with probation.

Second-Degree Murder — Reduced to Manslaughter

A jury found that my client’s shooting of his friend, while not exactly self-defense, was not “depraved mind” second-degree murder—resulting in a significantly reduced sentence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was the De Santus conviction reversed?

The Fourth DCA found that defense counsel’s combined errors—failing to use key impeachment evidence and failing to advise the client about testifying—violated the right to a fair trial. The court concluded these weren’t minor mistakes but fundamental failures that tainted the entire proceeding.

What is impeachment evidence?

Impeachment evidence challenges a witness’s credibility. In De Santus, the key witness had previously told a defense investigator that someone else—”Gangsta Baby”—had the gun. That prior inconsistent statement could have undermined her entire testimony, but the attorney never used it.

How do I verify an attorney’s homicide experience?

Ask directly: how many homicide trials have you handled to verdict? Request specific case outcomes. Check whether they’re death-penalty qualified under Florida Rule 3.112. If they hesitate or deflect, that tells you something.

Will the attorney I hire actually handle my case?

Ask before hiring. Some firms advertise experienced partners but assign cases to junior associates. At The Brancato Law Firm, every homicide case is handled personally—not by junior staff.

Facing Homicide Charges in Tampa Bay?

The De Santus case demonstrates what happens when preparation fails. A homicide trial demands experience, judgment, and attention to every detail. Anything less risks a lifetime behind bars.

I’m Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato. For more than 25 years, I have defended serious felony and homicide cases throughout Tampa Bay. As a former member of major-crimes and sex-crimes units in Tampa’s largest criminal defense office, I have the perspective that only decades in the courtroom can bring. Check out our Tampa Homicide Attorney Page.

I keep my caseload low so every client receives the preparation their case demands. If I’m too busy or it’s not the right fit, I’ll tell you—I won’t take a case I can’t handle properly.

Don’t assume every “homicide attorney” has the experience your life demands. Look behind the veil—before it’s too late.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

Oquendo v. State, SC2023-0807 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2025)

In Oquendo v. State, the Florida Supreme Court clarified an important question for anyone claiming self-defense—especially military veterans or trauma survivors. The ruling opens the door to PTSD evidence but also establishes clear requirements for how that evidence must be presented.

Florida’s Two-Part Self-Defense Test

The distinction matters because PTSD evidence alone won’t justify self-defense. The attorney must tie it directly to both parts of the legal test. Once the defense makes a sufficient showing, the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why PTSD Matters in Self-Defense Cases

PTSD can cause someone to experience heightened fear, hypervigilance, or automatic fight-or-flight responses. For veterans or others who have survived violence, these reactions are genuine and immediate.

The Court recognized that these factors can be relevant to whether the defendant actually believed their life was in danger—the subjective component of self-defense. However, the jury must also find that the belief was objectively reasonable.

That’s where a skilled trial lawyer becomes essential. It takes strategy, preparation, and experience to present PTSD evidence in a way that satisfies both components of Florida’s law.

What Skilled Defense Counsel Must Do

An attorney’s strategy must go beyond simply introducing a PTSD diagnosis. Success depends on helping jurors understand the defendant’s perception of danger—without violating the “golden rule,” which prohibits asking jurors to imagine themselves in the defendant’s position.

Through careful questioning, visual evidence, and expert testimony, a strong defense can:

1. Show why the defendant genuinely believed deadly force was necessary
2. Highlight the reasonableness of that belief under the circumstances
3. Address psychological effects of trauma without suggesting diminished capacity (which Florida law does not allow)

This approach allows jurors to feel the urgency of the moment—legally, persuasively, and within the rules of evidence.

What This Means for Veterans and Trauma Survivors

For veterans of war, first responders, and others living with PTSD, the Oquendo decision offers a meaningful step toward fairness. It recognizes that not all fear responses are the same—and that a person’s lived experience can shape how they perceive and respond to threats.

Yet the ruling also underscores the need for experienced representation. Without the right legal framing, PTSD evidence can easily be misunderstood or excluded. A seasoned defense attorney must connect the dots between the defendant’s internal belief and what the law considers reasonable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can PTSD be used as a defense in Florida?

PTSD itself isn’t a standalone defense, but after Oquendo, it can be relevant evidence in a self-defense case. It helps explain why the defendant believed they were in danger—but must be connected to the objective reasonableness standard as well.

What’s the difference between subjective and objective self-defense?

Subjective self-defense asks what the defendant actually believed. Objective self-defense asks whether a reasonably cautious person would have responded the same way. Florida requires both: genuine belief AND reasonable response.

Does this decision help veterans facing criminal charges?

Yes—but only with proper legal strategy. The Court opened the door to PTSD evidence, but without skilled framing, that evidence can be excluded or misunderstood. Veterans need attorneys who understand both combat trauma and Florida’s evidentiary rules.

What is the “golden rule” in Florida trials?

The golden rule prohibits asking jurors to imagine themselves in the defendant’s position. This creates a challenge for PTSD cases—the attorney must help jurors understand the defendant’s perception without explicitly asking them to “put yourself in his shoes.”

Facing Self-Defense Charges in Tampa Bay?

If you or a loved one faces charges involving self-defense—especially a shooting, homicide, or violent confrontation—it’s critical to act quickly. These cases turn on evidence, perception, and presentation.

I’m Tampa Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have defended clients across Tampa Bay in cases involving self-defense, homicide, and violent crimes. I understand how to present PTSD and trauma evidence within Florida’s evidentiary framework—and how to connect that evidence to both components of the self-defense test.

When your freedom is at stake, experience matters.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal recently granted Stand Your Ground immunity to a Palm Beach defendant charged with second-degree murder. In Spencer v. State (4D2025-0023), the court ruled that prosecutors failed to disprove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.

This case demonstrates why Stand Your Ground immunity matters for anyone facing violent crime charges in Florida. Moreover, it illustrates how the burden of proof works in self-defense cases—and why experienced legal representation is essential. I am Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato. For over 25 years, I have provide top level criminal defense services to the citizens of Tampa Bay. My firm, the Brancato Law Firm, P.A., can help change the narrative if you used self defense and stood your ground!

Case Background: Palm Beach Stand Your Ground Claim

Ivin Spencer was charged with second-degree murder after a deadly confrontation in a Palm Beach parking lot. Although Spencer admitted to the shooting, he argued that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law applied to his case.

The Victim’s History

The evidence showed that the victim, Brandon Bell, had a history of making threats and was known to carry a gun. Consequently, Spencer had reason to believe that any confrontation with Bell could turn deadly.

The Confrontation

On the day of the shooting, Bell aggressively advanced toward Spencer while yelling threats. Spencer, who had health limitations that put him at a physical disadvantage, feared for his safety. As a result, he fired a single shot.

After the Shooting

Immediately after the incident, Spencer called 911 and cooperated fully with police. This behavior is consistent with someone acting in self-defense rather than with criminal intent.

Why the Court Granted Stand Your Ground Immunity

The appellate court ruled that prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof. Specifically, the State could not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Spencer’s use of force was unjustified.

Together, these facts supported the conclusion that a reasonable person in Spencer’s position would believe deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Lessons from This Florida Self-Defense Ruling

Stand Your Ground Can Dismiss Charges Before Trial

Unlike an acquittal at trial, Stand Your Ground immunity dismisses charges entirely. As a result, the defendant avoids the risk, expense, and uncertainty of a jury trial. This makes pursuing immunity a critical strategy in appropriate cases.

The State Carries a Heavy Burden

Once a defendant raises Stand Your Ground, prosecutors must disprove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. This is a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence, though lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, it places significant pressure on the State.

Context Shapes Legal Outcomes

Prior threats, the victim’s reputation, physical disparities, and circumstances at the scene all matter. Therefore, thorough investigation and presentation of context is essential to a successful Stand Your Ground claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Stand Your Ground immunity in Florida?

Stand Your Ground immunity allows a defendant to have criminal charges dismissed before trial if they can show they used force in lawful self-defense. Under Florida law, a person has no duty to retreat if they are in a place where they have a right to be.

Who has the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground hearing?

Once the defendant raises Stand Your Ground, the burden shifts to the prosecution. The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s use of force was not justified. If prosecutors cannot meet this burden, the court must grant immunity.

Can Stand Your Ground apply to murder charges?

Yes, absolutely. Stand Your Ground immunity can apply to any charge where self-defense is raised, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. The Spencer case demonstrates that even second-degree murder charges can be dismissed through Stand Your Ground.

What evidence helps a Stand Your Ground claim?

Helpful evidence includes prior threats from the victim, the victim’s violent reputation, physical disparity between the parties, witness testimony about the confrontation, and the defendant’s post-incident conduct such as calling 911 and cooperating with police.

Is Stand Your Ground the same as self-defense?

Stand Your Ground is a specific type of self-defense claim under Florida law. The key difference is that Stand Your Ground eliminates the duty to retreat. In other words, you do not have to try to escape before using force if you are lawfully present at the location.

How do I pursue Stand Your Ground immunity?

Your attorney files a motion for Stand Your Ground immunity, and the court holds a hearing. At that hearing, the prosecution must prove that your use of force was not justified. If they fail, the charges are dismissed. This process requires experienced legal representation.

More on Self-Defense

• Tampa Attorney for Self-Defense
• Tampa PTSD and Self-Defense
• Tampa Criminal Mental Health Attorney
• Tampa Gun Crime Attorney
• Tampa Violent Crime Attorney
• Tampa Murder Attorney

Protect Your Rights with a Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you face violent crime charges where self-defense may apply, you need an attorney who understands how to argue for Stand Your Ground immunity in Florida. At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., attorney Rocky Brancato has more than 25 years of experience defending homicide, sex crimes, and major felonies throughout Tampa Bay.

Moreover, Attorney Brancato proactively pursues Stand Your Ground immunity hearings for eligible cases. Do not wait until trial to raise self-defense—the right strategy can dismiss charges entirely.

Call (813) 727-7159 for a Confidential Consultation

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602

Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties