A Question of Culpability

Sloan said she supported Atkins's execution because of the terror her son must have experienced on the long drive to his death, the number of times he was shot and how he begged for his life. Atkins already had been given a life sentence for his other crimes, and she felt something more was needed.

"It was just unbelievable, the kind of things that he did, and it seems like the only sentence that would bring justice," she said.

The case was on appeal at a time of change regarding capital punishment, however, with mounting concern about wrongful convictions and about whether some offenders should be exempt from execution -- juveniles and the mentally retarded, for example.

In February 2002, Sloan gathered up four of her five children and drove the family to Washington for oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. She recalls hearing less about the particulars of the crime than about the national landscape -- how many states had outlawed executions of the mentally retarded, how many had not.

On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the country had formed a national consensus against executing the mentally retarded. Banning the practice, the court said the retarded should be punished for crimes but should not be put to death because they are less morally culpable, with weaknesses in reasoning, judgment and impulse control.

"They have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes," the court said. In legal matters, they "may be less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel and are typically poor witnesses, and their demeanor may create an unwarranted impression of lack of remorse for their crimes."

The court also concluded that "mentally retarded defendants in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution."

When Sloan heard about the court's decision in Upstate New York -- where she lives in a farming community and works as a substitute teacher -- she was disappointed, believing that Atkins was not the right man for the larger issue. "I think he's probably not the brightest bulb in the pack," Sloan said, "but I don't think he's mentally retarded."

For the upcoming trial, Sloan and her husband will drive to Virginia. Most of Nesbitt's brothers and sisters will attend at various times. "He was their big brother," she said. "He was the one they all looked up to."

Many Interpretations

As the trial opens Monday, Daryl Atkins, now 27, will be seated beside his attorneys in a small, red-brick courthouse in the historic district of colonial Yorktown, about 35 miles from Norfolk. In recent hearings Atkins has appeared older than his years, balding and impassive in a prison jumpsuit, saying almost nothing as hours go by.

Jurors must decide whether the man they see and hear about over the next two weeks fits the definition of mental retardation. More than 90 witnesses could take the stand, including a procession of teachers, relatives, acquaintances and crime victims.

The test is laid out in Virginia law: Atkins will need to show low intellectual functioning -- with IQ scores, for example, generally at 70 or below -- and deficits in conceptual, social and practical life skills, all before age 18.