Death Row Inmate: Justice Department Weighs New DSM-5 Evidence for Execution Stay
Justices will decide if federal courts can review a death row sentence based on updated psychiatric standards that were not available at the initial trial.
By Rebecca Svoboda ·
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding the sentence of Dexter Johnson, a Texas death row inmate. The case centers on whether federal courts have the authority to grant relief based on new medical evidence that was not presented during the original trial.
Johnson was convicted of capital murder in 2006 for the killing of 23-year-old Maria Aparece. His execution was scheduled for May 2019, but a federal court stayed the sentence after his legal team raised a claim of intellectual disability. This defense was introduced just days before the execution date.
The legal team argues that the 2013 release of the DSM-5 changed how clinicians diagnose intellectual disability. The manual moved away from rigid IQ thresholds and instead focused on adaptive functioning deficits. Johnson’s filing states that under this newer framework, his trial expert withdrew the previous basis for denying a diagnosis, and two additional experts concluded he is intellectually disabled.
Ethan Nutter, a lawyer who filed an amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, noted that the medical community’s understanding of the condition has shifted in the last two decades. Nutter stated that the Supreme Court has previously ruled it is unconstitutional to execute someone with an intellectual disability, and that Johnson now meets the current definition.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Correctional Institutions asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in February 2026. In their brief, they argued that the lower court’s ruling erases strict limits on claims based on new evidence. The department wrote that for the people of Texas and the families of victims, justice delayed is justice denied.
Protasio Aparece, the father of the victim, also filed an amicus brief. His legal team wrote that Protasio wants to see justice carried out for his daughter and hopes to prevent other families from suffering decades of excessive delays. The justices will decide if federal courts can address second or successive habeas petitions in this specific context.
The court is expected to issue a decision in the case by June 2027.
