Reply Brief — Arthur Lee Burton, Petitioner v. Texas

No. 24-5221

ARTHUR LEE BURTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

RESPONDENT.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

STEVEN J. WELLS*

KATHRYN A. JOHNSON

50 South 6th Street, Suite 1500

Minneapolis, MN 55402

(612) 340-2600

*Counsel of Record

Attorneys for Petitioner

FORENSIC NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

Name:

Date of Birth:

Date of Examination:

Date of Report:

Arthur Lee Burton, Jr.

March 29, 1970

July 09, 2024

July 29, 2024

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

Mr. Arthur Burton is a 54-year-old man whose history and neuropsychological test results indicate

significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive functioning since childhood. These

characteristics, in my opinion, are sufficient to meet both the AAIDD and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for

intellectual disability. Neither of these two sets of criteria have a hard cutoff for an IQ score, and equal or

more weight is placed on the individual’s adaptive functioning when considering impairment. Especially in

light of his history and poor performance on measures of suggestibility and social judgment—which span

both intellectual and adaptive domains—Arthur’s symptoms and history fit squarely within the definition of

intellectual disability. Arthur’s WAIS-IV IQ score of 77—with a 95% confidence interval of 73 to 82—

indicates significant intellectual deficits and is consistent with a diagnosis of intellectual disability, and this

score becomes even lower (66.5 to 76.5) when error variance through the Flynn Effect is considered. A

newer version of the WAIS (the WAIS-5) is on the cusp of being released, but it will not yet be available

until September 2024. It is well established that someone with an IQ in the 70s can indeed be diagnosed with

intellectual disability so long as their adaptive functioning is impaired, and this pattern is present in Arthur’s

case. Even prior to incarceration, he had never lived on his own, and he had significant problems completing

everyday tasks independently without outside supports. He was also reported to have been gullible and easily

influenced, and this was consistent with cognitive test scores on the present exam. He also exhibited poor

practical judgment, ability to write a check to pay a bill, following simple commands, learning new

information consistently and efficiently, and ability to read a map. Based on multiple sources of information,

Arthur’s functioning has not improved dramatically over time and was present throughout childhood.

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 2 of 28

BASIS OF EVALUATION

- Review of Records:

o Crossett School district, school records of Arthur Burton dated 09/02/1986 to 05/25/1990

o Sworn Voluntary Statement of Arthur Burton Jr. dated 08/08/1997

o Statement of Arthur Burton Jr. (State’s Exhibit D) dated 08/08/1997

o Testimony transcript of Arthur Burton Jr. dated 06/18/1998

o Affidavit of Arthur Burton dated 07/13/2000

o Affidavit of Arthur Burton, Sr. (Arthur Burton’s father) dated 07/17/2000

o Affidavit of Jennifer Honea (law clerk) dated 07/18/2000

o Affidavit of Felisha Batts (Arthur Burton’s wife) dated 07/18/2000

o Affidavit of Tommy Sturgeon (Chief of Police) dated 07/18/2000

o Affidavit of Edward P. Friedman, PhD (forensic psychologist) dated 07/19/2000

o Declaration of Fannie Burton (Arthur Burton’s mother) dated 07/19/2000

o Declaration of Micheal Burton (Arthur Burton’s brother) dated 07/19/2000

o Affidavit of Chris Huffman (former juror at Arthur Burton’s capital murder trial) dated 07/20/2000

o Dee Dee Halpin, MS, summary of educational records dated 08/29/2002

o Testimony transcript of Dee Dee Halpin dated 09/04/2002

o Amended Consent Decree for Case No: 1:18-cv-1076 dated 02/03/2020

o Declaration of Scott Sasser (school counselor) dated 07/12/2024

o Declaration of Marcia Alexander (Arthur’s former teacher) dated 07/13/2024

o Declaration of Fannie Burton (Arthur Burton’s mother) dated 07/20/2024

o Declaration of Cheryl Douglas (Arthur Burton’s former girlfriend) dated 07/21/2024

o Declaration of Micheal Burton (Arthur Burton’s brother) dated 07/22/2024

o Declaration of Cassandra Green (Arthur’s former classmate) dated 07/25/2024

- Clinical interview and mental status exam on 07/09/2024

- Administration of the following neuropsychological tests on 07/09/2024: b test; Wechsler Adult Intelligence

Scale, 4th Edition (WAIS-IV); Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test, Second Edition (RIST-2); Wide Range

Achievement Test, 5th Edition (WRAT-5) Word Reading subtest; D-KEFS Word Context Test; D-KEFS 20

Questions Test; Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB) Language Module; Rey Word Recognition

Test; TOMM; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT); WRAML-3 Story Memory; NAB Daily Living

Module; Test of Practical Judgment (TOP-J); Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales; & embedded measures of

performance validity.

- Interview of Fannie Burton and administration of the Vineland Adaptative Behavior Scales Comprehensive

Level Interview, Third Edition (Vineland-3) on 07/14/2024

At the beginning of my interview with Arthur, I explained the nature, purpose, and scope of the evaluation, including

the relevant limits of confidentiality and privilege. I also explained the non-therapeutic nature of my role as a forensic

evaluator. Arthur indicated that he understood these explanations and cooperated fully with the evaluation process.

My qualifications are discussed in Exhibit A. My CV is attached as Exhibit B.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 3 of 28

RELEVANT STATUTES AND STANDARDS

Intellectual Disability (ID) can be diagnosed using two similar but distinct criteria: the American Association on

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD)1 and The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR).2 Practice guidelines recommend that equal weight and joint

consideration be given to intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior and that the 95% confidence interval (i.e., the

obtained score plus or minus two times its standard error of measurement) be used.3

The AAIDD criteria are as follow:

The AAIDD manual further states that all test results must be interpreted within the context of their administration

and any potential sources of testing error and that clinicians should consider all sources of evidence in making a

clinical judgment of a person’s overall functioning as part of a diagnosis of ID. The manual also stresses the

importance of linguistic diversity and cultural differences in the way people communicate, move, and behave. A

diagnosis of intellectual disability does not assume that a person is deficient in all areas assessed; as described in the

AAIDD manual, assessments must assume that limitations often coexist with strengths, and that an individual's level

of life functioning will improve if appropriate, personalized supports are provided over a sustained period.

As with the AAIDD, the DSM-5-TR criteria no longer specify a specific IQ score to be required for a diagnosis, and

increased weight has been placed on adaptive functioning than in previous diagnostic criteria. While it would seem as

1

Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R., & Tassé, M. J. (2021). Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and systems of

supports (12th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

https://www.aaidd.org/publications/bookstore-home/product-listing/intellectual-disability-definition-diagnosis-classification-andsystems-of-supports-12th-edition

2

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). American

Psychiatric Association Publishing.

3

Chafetz, M. (2015). Intellectual Disability: Criminal and Civil Forensic Issues. Oxford University Press.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 4 of 28

though this change would make it easier to obtain a diagnosis of intellectual disability, research has found the opposite

to be true: about 9% fewer children who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for intellectual disability met the DSM-5 criteria.4

The current DSM-5-TR criteria for intellectual disability as follow:

Examples of significant deficits in intellectual functioning include problems with thinking/learning (e.g., difficulties

with problem solving, abstract thinking, comprehending complex ideas, learning quickly, and learning from

experience), reasoning and planning (e.g., lessened interpersonal competence/decision making, deficits in social

problem solving and flexible thinking), and learning from experience (e.g., difficulties generalizing from past

experience, increased vulnerability/risk of victimization, tendency to deny or minimize their disability, desire to please

authority figures, and gullibility/suggestibility).5

“Intellectual disability is a condition, not a number.”

The above sentence stems from Justice Kennedy’s Hall v. Florida6 decision, which emphasized that IQ scores, while

helpful, are imprecise and are better understood as a range of scores rather than a single score. This is also found in

the AAIDD manual, which states, “Because no test is without some measurement error or imprecision, using a

confidence interval establishes a statistical range within which the assessed person’s true score falls within a certain

(e.g., 95%) probability…Consistent with best practices, we recommend interpreting all obtained standard scores using

a 95% interval (i.e., the obtained scores plus or minus two times its SEM).”

Intellectual disability is a clinical diagnosis much like Alzheimer’s disease, and it requires consideration of both

intellectual and adaptive factors. There is no longer a cutoff score for intellectual disability; not 70 nor 75. Both the

DSM-5-TR and the AAIDD criteria specify a score that is approximately (emphasis added) two standard deviations

below the mean, and an IQ score does not even appear in the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria. One reason to consider a

range of scores rather than a single score is to account for various sources of error variance. Small differences in

4

Papazoglou, A., Jacobson, L. A., McCabe, M., Kaufmann, W., & Zabel, T. A. (2014). To ID or not to ID? Changes in classification

rates of intellectual disability using DSM-5. Mental Retardation, 52(3), 165-174.

5

Chafetz, M. (2015). Intellectual Disability: Criminal and Civil Forensic Issues. Oxford University Press.

6

Supreme Court of the United States. (2014). Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 5 of 28

responses can lead to small, but important, changes in a test score, and when a high stakes decision is being made

based on a test score, it would be unwise to base that decision on a score that does not account for possible sources of

error. For example, a Full Scale IQ score of 77 on the WAIS-IV reduces to a score of 75 if the person less accurately

defines one word, knows one fewer historical/scientific fact, and finds two fewer matching symbols in a span of two

minutes. In clinical practice, this difference is essentially meaningless, but in a high stakes situation, error variance

must be considered. While the WAIS-IV is a very reliable measure, its test-retest reliability of 0.95 means that one

the same person taking the same test within a span of about three weeks, on average, is going to have a score that is

95% the same. While relatively insignificant in clinical practice, this in inherent variability in scores could mean a

difference of about 5 points. For this reason, among others, IQ is best understood as a range of scores.

When an individual has an IQ score above 70 but still within a range that may indicate deficits in intellectual

functioning, the task then is to determine whether additional evidence of intellectual disability regarding adaptive

deficits qualifies the individual for a diagnosis. Indeed, this notion is contained in the DSM-5-TR as well:

"Such [IQ] testing may identify areas of relative strengths and weaknesses, an assessment important

for academic and vocational planning. IQ test scores are approximations of conceptual functioning

but may be insufficient to assess reasoning in real-life situations and mastery of practical tasks. For

example, a person with deficits in intellectual functioning whose IQ score is somewhat above 65–

75 may nevertheless have such substantial adaptive behavior problems in social judgment or other

areas of adaptive functioning that the person’s actual functioning is clinically comparable to that

of individuals with a lower IQ score. Thus, clinical judgment is important in interpreting the results

of IQ tests, and using them as the sole criteria for the diagnosis of an intellectual developmental

disorder is insufficient.”

The DSM-5-TR also states, “Individual cognitive profiles based on neuropsychological testing as well as cross-battery

intellectual assessment (using multiple IQ or other cognitive tests to create a profile) are more useful for understanding

intellectual abilities than a single IQ score."

The Presence of Strengths Does Not Preclude a Diagnosis of Intellectual Disability. Individuals with intellectual

disability are expected to have areas of strength. For example, Arthur’s verbal abilities are a clinically significant

strength compared with his other scores. While this magnitude is rather large (e.g., 12 points higher than his nonverbal

reasoning and 20 points higher than his working memory), it is not particularly uncommon, as a difference of 12 points

between verbal and nonverbal reasoning occurs in about 20% of the population.

Average (ss10) WAIS-IV Vocabulary Scores by Age

40

35

30

25

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

11

11

85

-9

0:

11

80

-8

4:

11

75

-7

9:

11

70

-7

4:

11

65

-6

9:

11

55

-6

4:

11

45

-5

4:

11

35

-4

4:

11

30

-3

4:

11

25

-2

9:

11

20

-2

4:

18

-1

9:

16

-1

7:

11

20

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 6 of 28

As shown in the graph above, a 54-year-old, on average, is expected to score about five raw points higher than a 20year-old despite them both having an exactly average score; that is, one’s ability to define a word will be better, on

average, when he is in his 50s than when he is in his 20s. Similar improvements verbal abilities have been shown in

groups of intellectually disabled individuals as well,7,8,9 meaning that it is possible to improve in reading skills while

still having intellectual disability.

In the original Atkins case10, the prosecution’s expert argued that Atkins had higher functioning because he used words

such as “orchestra,” “decimal,” and “parable,” but knowledge of such words is not dispositive of intellectual disability.

IQ scores are not expected to correlate universally with neuropsychological test scores, as not all neuropsychological

tests have the same type of score distribution that is found in an IQ test.11 For example, a test of dementia severity

intended for seriously disabled populations is going to have a very skewed distribution, meaning that it will be

relatively rare to have a low score. This means that someone with, say, intellectual disability may score highly on this

measure, but it does not discount the presence of other deficits.

The DSM-5-TR further defines common adaptive deficits and supports needed for mild12 intellectual disability, as

shown below.

7

Van den Bos, K. P., Nakken, H., Nicolay, P. G., & Van Houten, E. J. (2007). Adults with mild intellectual disabilities: Can their

reading comprehension ability be improved?. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(11), 835-849.

8

Dessemontet, R. S., Martinet, C., de Chambrier, A. F., Martini-Willemin, B. M., & Audrin, C. (2019). A meta-analysis on the

effectiveness of phonics instruction for teaching decoding skills to students with intellectual disability. Educational Research

Review, 26, 52-70.

9

Hatch, P. (2009). The effects of daily reading opportunities and teacher experience on adolescents with moderate to severe

intellectual disability (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

10

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

11

Greiffenstein, M. F. (2009). Clinical myths of forensic neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(2), 286-296.

12

The term “mild” in something as serious as intellectual disability is somewhat of a misnomer. It would be akin to saying that one

form of cancer is milder than another, yet both can still have devastating effects.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 7 of 28

Making a Retrospective Diagnosis

In many cases, a diagnosis of intellectual disability is made during childhood, but this is not a defining factor of the

diagnosis. The symptoms and behaviors leading to the diagnosis must have been present in the developmental period,

but this can be assessed retrospectively using 1) a thorough social, medical, and educational history; 2) basing the

diagnosis on multiple data points; 3) interpreting previously administered adaptive behavior assessments in terms of

the quality of information and situations that were analyzed; and 4) interpreting previously administered intellectual

functioning assessments in terms of the extent to which the assessment used a standardized and up-to-date test,

considered the confidence interval, and corrected for the age of the norms that were employed (i.e., “the Flynn

effect”).13

People tend to become smarter (and therefore perform better on IQ tests) over time.14 This means that a score compared

against out-of-date test norms may appear artificially higher depending how much time has passed since a test was

normed. A person’s IQ score should not change over time, but the normative group against which a score is measured

must in order to provide accurate results. Flynn, in 2006, offered an example highlighted in another study15 in which

there was an immediate rise in the number of children being classified as mentally retarded because some school

psychologists had begun to use the new test (normed in 1989) rather than the older WISC–R (normed in 1972). Due

to IQ gains over time, children in the mentally retarded range who took the new test were averaging 5.6 IQ points

lower than those who were still taking the old test, and this was due to the 17 years between the time when the data

was collected and the data of testing.16

IQ scores are relative measurements based on the performance of groups known as standardization samples, and

collection of these samples is costly both in time and resources, so the tests are not updated frequently.17 Thus, the

problem of comparing a current score to a standardization sample that may have been collected decades earlier arises.

Consideration of a more extreme difference highlights the importance of accounting for these changes over time. For

instance, if someone in 2024 took the original WAIS IQ test that was released in 1955, their score would be expected

to be significantly higher than it would on a more recently normed test because the population as a whole is now

smarter than it was almost 70 years ago.

The Flynn Effect has been applied to the WAIS-R, WAIS-III, and WAIS-IV.18,19,20 This has also been deemed as

acceptable practice in the courts as well. For instance, a Maryland Federal court found the Flynn effect to be a

13

Chafetz, M. (2015). Intellectual Disability: Criminal and Civil Forensic Issues. Oxford University Press.

Flynn, J. R. (2009). The WAIS-III and WAIS-IV: Daubert motions favor the certainly false over the approximately

true. Applied Neuropsychology, 16(2), 98-104.

15

Kanaya, T., Scullin, M. H., & Ceci, S. J. (2003). The Flynn effect and US policies: the impact of rising IQ scores on American

society via mental retardation diagnoses. American Psychologist, 58(10), 778.

16

Flynn, J. R. (2006). Tethering the elephant: Capital cases, IQ, and the Flynn effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(2),

170.

17

Young, G. W. (2012). A More Intelligent and Just Atkins: Adjusting for the Flynn Effect in Capital Determinations of Mental

Retardation or Intellectual Disability. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65, 615.

18

Zhou, X., Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. G. (2010). Peeking inside the “black box” of the Flynn effect: Evidence from three Wechsler

instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 399-411.

19

Grégoire, J., & Weiss, L. G. (2019). The Flynn effect and its clinical implications. WISC-V assessment and interpretation:

Scientist-practitioner perspectives, 245-270.

20

Trahan, L. H., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., & Hiscock, M. (2014). The Flynn effect: a meta-analysis. Psychological

bulletin, 140(5), 1332.

14

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 8 of 28

persuasive argument with regard to a defendant’s intellectual functioning (“In conclusion, the Court finds the

defendant's Flynn effect evidence both relevant and persuasive, and will, as it should, consider the Flynn-adjusted

scores in its evaluation of the defendant's intellectual functioning.”).21

Practical Issues in Assessing Adaptive Functioning in Capital Cases

A retrospective assessment of adaptive behavior is often considered as the only viable option when the assessed

individual is incarcerated, let alone on death row with even more restrictions. In these situations, it is necessary to

interview a knowledgeable respondent (if available) to capture the individual’s typical adaptive behavior in the

community when they were not incarcerated. Adaptive functioning refers to behaviors typically displayed by an

individual, not necessarily their adaptive abilities, which can take into account how someone would be able to function

with ongoing support. Further, limitations in adaptive functioning are not synonymous with solely a lack of

motivation; someone with adaptive deficits, as a function of their condition, would be expected to have limitations in

their ability to carry out everyday tasks that is beyond what would be expected by lack of motivation alone. In the vast

majority of cases, adaptive functioning is measured through a combination of interviews and neuropsychological

testing, and relevant life experiences—such as romantic relationships, hobbies, social outings, and occupational

performance—are considered. When the person being assessed is incarcerated, the freedom to engage in adaptive

behaviors previously enjoyed is highly restricted. In this circumstance, it is common for an evaluator to obtain

collateral reports and records to obtain converging lines of evidence when possible. The additional restrictions placed

on someone on death row make the assessment even more challenging because certain characteristics that could

otherwise be considered in the prison setting—such as job performance—are not allowed.22 In this situation, it is

recommended that information from multiple sources and contexts be considered, and diagnostic interviews should

be performed in the context of a clearly identified time period for which the respondent should consider (e.g., how the

individual was functioning before they were incarcerated).23,24

BACKGROUND

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY:

Arthur’s mother, Fannie Burton, stated that he was born via a full-term pregnancy with no complications. She could

not recall him being delayed in meeting developmental milestones.25 Arthur has many developmental risk factors for

21

US v. Davis, 611 F. Supp. 2d 472 (D. Md. 2009).

Chafetz, M. (2015). Intellectual Disability: Criminal and Civil Forensic Issues. Oxford University Press.

23

Schalock, R. L. (2007). User's guide: mental retardation: definition, classification, and systems of supports: applications for

clinicians, educators, disability program managers, and policy makers. AAMR.

24

Tassé, M. J. (2009). Adaptive behavior assessment and the diagnosis of mental retardation in capital cases. Applied

Neuropsychology, 16(2), 114-123.

25

While some conditions that lead to intellectual disability involve clear deficits from birth and/or delays in meeting developmental

milestones, many individuals with ID do not display concerning signs of it until they are school-aged.

22

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 9 of 28

intellectual disability (e.g., malnutrition, exposure to environmental air pollution such as dioxin, low SES).26,27,28,29,30

Fannie married Arthur’s father when she was 16 and he was 22, and they had their first child about a year later. She

reported that Arthur’s father was unfaithful and violent towards her, and she and the children later moved in with her

mother (Arthur’s grandmother) in Louisiana and Arkansas. Arthur reported that they lived with his grandmother in a

one-bedroom house in Arkansas, and they were later able to move into a larger home. Arthur lived less than a mile

away from a factory was eventually shut down due to excess environmental toxins (e.g., hydrogen sulfide and known

carcinogens such as formaldehyde, dioxin, acetaldehyde and chloroform) exposure.31,32,33,34 This event was also

recalled by Arthur’s former classmate, Cassandra Green, who recalled that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

came to her town to test the area and found that there were very high cancer rates in their county. Fannie, in her

declaration, stated that money was tight when Arthur was a child, and they did not always have food or electricity.

Arthur’s brother, Micheal, stated that they occasionally did not have food at home for several days and that water and

electricity were sometimes turned off. Arthur recalled frequently going to school hungry.

EDUCATIONAL HISTORY AND EVIDENCE OF CONCEPTUAL DEFICITS:

Arthur’s academic history provides significant evidence of conceptual deficits. Fannie recalled that she realized Arthur

needed extra help in school when he was in elementary school. She stated that math was always especially hard for

him, and he was in special education classes throughout his schooling. Micheal also reported that Arthur was in special

education classes along with him. Fannie recalled that Arthur enjoyed reading comic books from a young age, but for

many years he seemed to look at the pictures more than read them. According to school records from Crossett School

District, Arthur’s grades in elementary and middle school were generally poor to average, depending on the class. He

was in a remedial reading glass, and he failed math, English, and social studies courses at times.

Records indicate that he repeated the 2nd and 8th grades, but Arthur had difficulty recalling which grades he repeated.

In his second time in the 8th grade, he still earned almost entirely Ds (with the exception of remedial reading). In his

senior year of high school, Arthur earned a D in an independent living skills class. Arthur’s 10th grade basic math

teacher, Marcia Alexander, recalled that Arthur failed her math class and had to retake it and that he would try to mask

26

Bellinger, D. C. (2019). Environmental chemical exposures and intellectual disability in children. Handbook of Intellectual

Disabilities: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, 347-363.

27

Chattopadhyay, N., & Saumitra, M. (2016). Developmental outcome in children with malnutrition. Journal of Nepal Paediatric

Society, 36(2), 170-177.

28

Uzun Cıcek, A., Sarı, S. A., & Mercan Isık, C. (2020). Sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, and prevalence of

comorbidity among children and adolescents with intellectual disability: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Mental Health Research

in Intellectual Disabilities, 13(2), 66-85.

29

Waber, D. P., Bryce, C. P., Girard, J. M., Zichlin, M., Fitzmaurice, G. M., & Galler, J. R. (2014). Impaired IQ and academic

skills in adults who experienced moderate to severe infantile malnutrition: a 40-year study. Nutritional neuroscience, 17(2), 58-64.

30

Huang, J., Zhu, T., Qu, Y., & Mu, D. (2016). Prenatal, perinatal and neonatal risk factors for intellectual disability: a systemic

review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 11(4), e0153655.

31

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, December 14). Georgia-Pacific settles EPA Clean Air Act claims at Crossett,

Ark., facility, will correct alleged violations and pay civil penalties. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/newsreleases/georgia-pacific-settles-epa-clean-air-act-claims-crossett-ark-facility-willcorrect.html

32

Crunden, E. A. (2016, April 12). Small town in Arkansas battles Georgia-Pacific pollution.

Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/crossett-arkansas-georgia-pacific-factory-pollution-446954

33

NWA Online. (2018, March 25). Findings list smell from mill over limit. NWA

Online. https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2018/mar/25/findings-list-smell-from-mill-over-limi/

34

Wiener, D. (2019, August 1). Koch closes plant after huge EPA fine. Exposed by

CMD. https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2019/08/01/koch-closes-plant-after-huge-epa-fine/

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 10 of 28

his deficits so he would not appear impaired to other students. She stated that she still has the textbooks that were used

in that course, and they included information about sales tax, how to read a bank statement, and how loan payments

worked. She also provided an example of a basic high school biology class that she taught and how she used activities

from her daughter’s 4th grade science book to teach, which gives a sense of how academically challenged the students

in a basic biology class were.

In a declaration, a school counselor who is knowledgeable about the standard practices of the school district stated

that only a small minority of students were held back, and it was done due to insufficient progress rather than as a

punishment. Arthur was 11 years old when he was in the 4th grade, and almost all of his scores on standardized tests

were still below grade level at that time. He also indicated that Arthur’s GPA of 2.18 included grades from his special

education courses, meaning that it was not likely to be a true reflection of his abilities. Arthur graduated from high

school, but he did so with a “basic” diploma, which is the “lowest path.” Arthur’s former teacher, Marcia Alexander,

concurred, stating, “Basic diplomas were for the students who were mentally and academically challenged. Obtaining

that sort of diploma meant that they had satisfied the absolute minimum requirements to graduate from school.”

Arthur’s former classmate (who is now a public school administrator), Cassandra Green, stated, “The Basic diploma

typically meant that a student was in special education,” and she added that, at that time, special education courses

were taught at a much lower level. Ms. Green’s father was the principal of Arthur’s high school, and she recalled that

it was important to her father than all children have the ability to graduate, no matter their struggle.

Communication problems are highlighted as an area of conceptual adaptive functioning deficits in the DSM-5-TR.

Arthur’s problems in communication were recalled by several individuals. Arthur’s mother recalled that he would

often forget instructions that were told to him seconds earlier, and he struggled to find words to communicate. She

stated that he would probably have been able to tell you how to get somewhere and that “there would be a couple

wrong turns, but you’d get there eventually.” One of Arthur’s ex-girlfriend’s, Cheryl Douglas, also remembered that

Arthur had a hard time communicating, stating “Arthur needed extra support to speak up for himself. It was hard to

know what was on Arthur’s mind because he couldn't verbalize it.” She observed that, at the time she was spending

time with him, “he had a hard time putting his thoughts together to be able to say what he was thinking or feeling.”

SOCIAL HISTORY AND EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL DEFICITS:

Arthur’s social history reveals evidence of deficits in the social domain, including gullibility and being easily lead.

Arthur’s mother and brother reported that he was teased and bullied frequently as a child. The DSM-5-TR indicates

that individuals with intellectual disability often display gullibility that involves “naiveté in social situations and a

tendency for being easily led by others.” Fannie recalled that Arthur was a “follower” who mainly went along with

what others were doing. She stated that there were times when he thought people were his friends, but it was clear that

they were getting him in trouble by telling him to do something. For example, she stated that his friends once

convinced him to take something from a store by telling him that it was easy to do. She also recalled that Arthur had

difficulty saying no to people when they asked him to do something, and he was easily influenced by others. One of

Arthur’s ex-girlfriends, Cheryl Douglas, concurred with this. In her declaration, she stated, “Arthur didn’t really think

for himself. People he cared about told him what to do, especially his mother. Arthur didn’t rock the boat when

someone else was telling him what to do. He would just go along with it.” She also stated that he had difficulty making

friends, and he often did not realize that people did not have his best interests in mind until it was too late. She recalled

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 11 of 28

that Arthur would often laugh to try to fit in, even when there was not anything funny happening. She and Arthur had

a son together, and she reported that her son was diagnosed with intellectual disability as a child.

The DSM-5-TR also highlights low social participation and difficulty in accurately perceiving peers’ social cues as

characteristics of adaptive deficits. Arthur’s former classmate, Cassandra Green, recalled that Arthur was quiet,

withdrawn, and often did not have facial expressions that matched his actions. She provided an example of him

cracking a joke but still having a sad expression on his face. She recalled that Arthur would try to make others laugh

to distract from his schoolwork, but she did not recall him to get in trouble frequently. Like Ms. Douglas, Ms. Green

recalled that Arthur would often “get mixed up in something his friends were doing.”

DAILY LIVING ABILITIES AND PRACTICAL DEFICITS:

It is common for individuals with ID to be able to work in lower-skilled occupations.35 After graduating from high

school when he was about 20 years old, Arthur worked at the Georgia-Pacific—a chemical plant and plywood mill—

that was later shut down due to excess environmental toxins as described above. Arthur has also worked in warehouse

jobs, where he loaded and unloaded trucks. Arthur also worked for his father, who owned a construction business. He

did not recall having seen his father for over 20 years until he decided to move to Texas and work for him along with

his brother Micheal. In his declaration, Micheal said the job, which involved pouring concrete, was more physically

challenging than mentally demanding, as the concrete was pre-mixed and delivered on a truck, and they did mostly

the same things each day. Arthur Sr. was generally the person who did the planning of the day’s activities. He worked

with his father for about five years, even after Micheal stopped working there because his father was not treating them

well. Micheal recalled that their father’s treatment worsened over time and extended to physical abuse. He recalled

that his father tried to break his arm with a baseball bat and pulled a gun on him. He felt that their father only wanted

them there for the money, and he decided to leave this job, but Arthur stayed “for quite a while” thereafter. Arthur’s

choice to stay at this job despite receiving abusive treatment is further evidence of a practical deficit (i.e., failure to

maintain a safe environment for himself).

According to the DSM-5-TR, practical aspects of adaptive functioning involve activities such as personal care, job

responsibilities, money management, self-management of behavior, and nutritious food preparation, among others.

Arthur’s mother and brother stated that he could not cook meals, did not go grocery shopping, needed to be told to do

anything around the house. Arthur stated the same in his interview. He stated that he never lived by himself. He was

living with his common-law wife for about five years before he was incarcerated. He stated that she paid the bills, did

the grocery shopping, planned and cooked meals, did the laundry, and did most of the cleaning. He stated that he knew

how to make eggs and toast but otherwise rarely cooked. He denied having problems with personal self-care.

When Arthur was testifying in his case, he was unable to recall his previous address and how old he was when he

lived in Louisiana and Arkansas. His mother recalled that he generally cashed his paycheck and did not utilize a bank

account. Micheal also recalled that Arthur would carry cash with him. His mother was unaware of him being directly

responsible for any bills. His brother Micheal, who also lived with him as an adult, stated that Arthur would do

anything that someone in authority told him to do. He recalled that Arthur and Felisha’s home was dirty and “looked

like a hoarder’s home.”

35

For example, the DSM-5-TR states, “In adulthood, competitive employment is often seen in jobs that do not emphasize conceptual

skills.”

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 12 of 28

Arthur’s mother recalled an instance in which he almost drowned in a pool when he was 10 years old because he

jumped in along with others but did not know how to swim. She also recalled a time in which he drove a car from

Texas to Louisiana and did not know to check the oil or the radiator to ensure that it was working properly, which

caused major problems with the car. Arthur’s mother described his love for animals and questionable judgment related

to caring for them. For instance, she described a time in which Arthur rescued a cat and put it in her bed while she

was sleeping. Micheal also recalled a time in which Arthur tired sneaking in a cat by putting it under his shirt and

hoping no one would notice. On another occasion, he rescued a dog, which he would try to bathe daily, and upon

being frustrated that the dog would get dirty again, he felt the solution would be to nail boards over the doghouse so

that it could not exit.

Arthur’s mother recalled that he had significant difficulty putting furniture together with an instruction manual. He

often did not think about how healthy one food was compared with another, and he often did not pick the correct

clothing for the weather. She stated that he would come to someone when he was feeling sick and did not know to

take his own temperature or take a medication such as Tylenol. She recalled that she could not trust that he washed

his hands before touching food and that he would not think to rinse off produce before consuming it. She stated that

he was eventually not allowed to put dishes away because he accidentally broke too many of them, and he was not

allowed to use the stove or the oven for cooking because he forgot to turn it off at one point.

MEDICAL, PSYCHIATRIC, AND SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY:

Arthur denied having any major medical problems or taking any medications. He reported having a history of

depression especially after being incarcerated, but he stated that this generally improved over time. He reported that

he was consuming alcohol (mostly hard liquor) with coworkers after work on a regular basis prior to incarceration.

In July 2000, Arthur was evaluated by psychologist Edward Friedman, PhD. Dr. Friedman’s evaluation of Arthur

involved the use of a significantly outdated test that was given in non-standard conditions. He also did not review

school records, perform any additional cognitive testing, or speak with any family members. According to an affidavit

dated 07/19/2000, Dr. Friedman stated that Arthur did well in science and history courses, which was apparently based

on Arthur’s self-report. This is inconsistent with school records that show him making C and D grades in these courses

at times. Dr. Friedman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Revised (WAIS-R), which even then was

an extremely old test, and it did not comport with practice guidelines for the assessment of intellectual functioning.36

The WAIS-R was released in 1981 and utilized the same data from the original WAIS, which was published in 1955,

with new norming. At the time of the evaluation in 2000, the WAIS-III had been out for about three years. I was

unable to review data from the WAIS-R that was administered to Arthur, and I was thus unable to validate its scoring

to ensure its accuracy; however, Dr. Friedman did mention that the test was administered in the presence of third party

observers, which is also against protocol and may have affected his test score. According to Dr. Friedman, Arthur

produced a Full Scale IQ of 84 on the WAIS-R. He did not administer any additional cognitive testing. Dr. Friedman

also administered the Personality Assessment Inventory, which was an up-to-date test but was also incorrectly

administered, as Dr. Friedman stated that he was not present while Arthur was taking it, which violates the typical

36

According to the AAIDD, practice guidelines for assessing intellectual functioning include, among others, the use of “a current,

reliable, valid, and individually administered, comprehensive, and standardized that is normed on the general population and yields

a full-scale IQ score for the individual.” They also state that the most recent norms of an instrument should be used and that the

95% confidence interval be used to consider an IQ score.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 13 of 28

procedure for the test. Nevertheless, Dr. Friedman commented on Arthur being especially suggestible. He did not

address adaptive functioning otherwise.

FINDINGS

MENTAL STATUS & BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS:

Arthur was evaluated via a contact visit at TDCJ Polunsky. The evaluation was completed in a private attorney

consultation room, and no one else was present in the room. I checked in several times to ensure that Arthur could

hear, see, and otherwise complete testing without issue, and he stated that he was able to do so. He remained shackled

during testing, but he was able to use his hands to manipulate blocks and use a pen without issue. As described below,

one of the validity tests that he passed involved moving his hands quickly, and one of his better scores was also on a

measure that required hand speed. Thus, the conditions of the evaluation were not deemed to have affected Arthur’s

ability to produce valid and reliable test scores on this exam.

Arthur was dressed in standard issued attire and wore eyeglasses. He appeared to have problems with articulation

(e.g., a mild lisp), but his speech was otherwise normal in rate, rhythm, and volume. He appeared to have problems

coming up with words in conversation. He tended to say little in conversation, but his thought process was generally

linear and on-topic. At the conclusion of the evaluation, I asked him if he had any questions for me, and he stated that

he did not. He reported thinking about his potential execution date “sometimes.” He denied experiencing

hallucinations and there were no signs of delusions. He denied having suicidal thoughts. He reported his mood to be

“not so great,” and his affect was congruent with his mood. When he was asked why his mood was low, he stated that

there was “nothing to do but sit around” due to the power outage, and he did not bring up his potential execution date.

In addition to standardized testing, I showed Arthur a series of letters—some real and some fake—to determine if he

was able to identify areas of risk in everyday situations. For example, on letter that was shown to him promised him

to be a “secret shopper” as long as he fronted the money, and he indicated that he could call the number listed on the

letter. He was later presented a fraudulent letter related to taxes being owed and the need for him to provide personal

information, and he indicated that he would comply with the letter.

PERFORMANCE AND SYMPTOM VALIDITY:

Methods.

If results of questionnaires and cognitive tests are to be used to make important decisions and conclusions, it is

important to ensure the accuracy of the test results, such that lack of engagement or purposeful incorrect or

symptomatic responses (i.e., malingering) can be ruled out. This is primarily performed by administering assessments

designed to measure performance and symptom validity, examining score profiles within tests designed to measure

other abilities, and monitoring unusual test behaviors or performances that are drastically inconsistent with known

neurological conditions. To assess performance validity, I selected stand-alone measures, embedded measures, and

cut off scores a priori and used scores that were appropriate for the examinee’s population37. I chose widely accepted

37

Boone, K. B. (Ed.). (2021). Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment, 2nd Ed. Guilford Publications.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 14 of 28

measures with strong sensitivity and specificity rates and considered other conditions that could create inaccurate

validity testing results.

Results.

Arthur passed all stand-alone and embedded measures of performance validity that were administered. Passing a

performance validity test does not imply that a person is not impaired; it merely indicates that an examinee was putting

forth adequate effort to produce valid and reliable cognitive test scores. Arthur also appeared to be engaged during

the evaluation and did not appear to have any problems concentrating on the tests administered. Thus, the following

test scores can be considered to be a valid and reliable indication of his current abilities.

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING:

Methods.

Arthur was administered numerous measures of cognitive functioning that were appropriate for the referral question

and his background. It is not uncommon for neuropsychological test selection to vary depending on the needs of the

individual completing the test and the referral source. While many of the same measures are often selected for

evaluation of a particular disease, disorder, or condition, it is through clinical judgment that certain measures are and

are not selected, and this methodology is a common and standard practice in the field of neuropsychology.

Because disorders such as intellectual disability may not be formally identified in childhood, a clinical interview

often holds more weight than simply determining whether someone was diagnosed as a child. A combination of

information from both contemporaneous and retrospective contexts is recommended.38 As described above, it is

challenging to assess adaptive functioning for an individual who has been on death row for many years, but there are

clinically sound methods for doing so. To conduct this assessement, I followed guidelines39 offered for this situation

including the following:

•

•

•

•

•

Use of standardized adaptive behavior scale that was normed on the general population

Obtaining corroborating information to support the information obtained on the standardized assessment

Identifying a clear time period for which the respondent should focus their report of the individual’s adaptive

behavior

Building rapport with the respondent prior to the standardized assessment interview

Periodically reminding the respondent that they are assessing the individual’s adaptive behavior in that

specific time period

Cognitive Test Results40

38

Cunningham, M. (2010). Evaluation for capital sentencing. Oxford University Press.

Tassé, M. J. (2009). Adaptive behavior assessment and the diagnosis of mental retardation in capital cases. Applied

Neuropsychology, 16(2), 114-123.

40

A complete table of test results is provided at the end of this report. Results are summarized here.

39

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 15 of 28

Arthur’s WAIS-IV Full Scale IQ was found to be 77, and there is a 95% chance that his “true” score is between 73

and 8241. He exhibited a relatively significant strength on measures of verbal abilities, and he performed especially

poorly on measures of working memory, which was consistent with his prior evaluation. About 50% of people with

mild intellectual disability have a profile like Arthur’s in which tests involving speed are generally worse than tests

that do not.42

Arthur was also administered several other neuropsychological tests, and a visual depiction of Arthur’s cognitive test

results is shown below43.

41

While the SEM on an IQ test is typically considered to be plus/minus 5 points, this is calculated mathematically when the test is

considered, and it is provided in the test output. This can sometimes result in an asymmetrical confidence interval (e.g., minus

four points, plus five points).

42

WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual, Table C.4

43

Scores shown indicate a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The blue bars indicate the highest and lowest scores in each

area. The light gray shading indicates Below Average scores, and the dark gray shading indicates Exceptionally Low scores.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 16 of 28

As stated in the AAIDD manual (Tables 3.1 and 3.3), there is some overlap between measures of intellectual and

adaptive functioning. For example, both domains might include problems with social problem solving/decisionmaking, problems with language comprehension, suggestibility, and a desire to please authority figures.

Arthur’s current test results indicated Exceptionally Low44 (worse than over 98% of his peers) scores on the

following:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

attention to detail in a visual scene (NAB Daily Living Module: Driving Scenes)

writing a check to pay a bill (NAB Daily Living Module: Bill Payment)

following instructions by reading a map (NAB Daily Living Module: Map Reading)

following simple two-step verbal instructions (NAB Language Module)

writing a paragraph to describe a visual scene (NAB Language Module)

judgment of various safety scenarios (Test of Practical Judgment)

suggestibility following slightly negative feedback (Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales)

Arthur’s paragraph describing a visual scene, as shown below, included generally intact spelling but only consisted

of two sentences, and he was missing a great deal of information from the picture shown to him. The scene shown to

him involved a family having a cookout in a backyard, and there were numerous details including clothing, emotions,

characters, and items that were present.

44

Score categories are based on the descriptors provided in Guilmette, T. J., Sweet, J. J., Hebben, N., Koltai, D., Mahone, E. M.,

Spiegler, B. J., ... & Conference Participants. (2020). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference

statement on uniform labeling of performance test scores. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 34(3), 437-453.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 17 of 28

Arthur was presented with various safety and judgment scenarios on the Test of Practical Judgment, and his score was

extremely low. The concepts measures on this test are shown below, with those in red indicating completely incorrect

responses and those in orange indicating partially correct responses (1/3 points).

Arthur performed very poorly on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS). When presented with a forced choice

answer in which neither was correct (e.g., “was the car black or blue?” when it was really red), he acquiesced to the

forced choice response (e.g., chose one of the incorrect answers rather than saying that neither occurred) much more

than the general population (Y1 and Y2). His Shift score was especially poor when examining the change in this

behavior after being provided with negative feedback (e.g., “You have made a number of errors. It is therefore

necessary to go through the questions once more, and this time try to be more accurate”), meaning that he either

changed a response from one choice to another or from no to yes. His total suggestibility score (“Sugg”) was higher

than 89% of others.

As described above, Arthur’s scores on the GSS indicated a very strong tendency to acquiesce to social pressure and

change his responses. The graphs below show Arthur’s scores in comparison with other populations including the

general population and those with intellectual disability.

25

Arthur's GSS Scores vs. Various Populations

20

15

10

5

0

IR

DR

General Population

Virginia

Y1

Forensic ID (IQ 46-75)

Y2

Shift

Arthur

Sugg

Nonforensic ID (IQ 57-75)

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 18 of 28

The second graph shows how discrepant Arthur’s GSS scores were compared with these populations. These are shown

using z-scores, with a score of zero meaning that it is average compared with a particular group, while positive and

negative scores show whether a score was better or worse than that group. As shown below, Arthur’s scores on

measures of suggestibility were often significantly higher (worse) than the general population and highly consistent

with the intellectual disabled population.

Arthur's GSS Scores vs. Various Populations

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

-0.50

IR

DR

Y1

Y2

Shift

Sugg

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

General Population

Forensic ID (IQ 46-75)

Nonforensic ID (IQ 57-75)

Arthur produced Below Average (worse than 92 to 98% of his peers) performances on the following measures:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

nonverbal abstraction (Odd Item Out)

confrontation naming (NAB Language Module)

mental arithmetic from word problems read aloud (WAIS-IV Arithmetic)

repetition and mental rearrangement of numbers read aloud (WAIS-IV Digit Span)

speeded matching of numbers and symbols (WAIS-IV Coding)

efficiency of learning and remembering words read aloud (RAVLT)

recognition of words from a list (RAVLT)

retention of everyday information (NAB Daily Living Module: Daily Living Memory)

Arthur produced Low Average scores (worse than 76 to 92% of his peers) on the following measures:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

single word reading (6th grade equivalent)

problem solving efficiency (although his overall score on the D-KEFS 20 Questions test was normal, he

exhibited a very poor and inconsistent strategy)

learning of medication instructions and a name/address

recall of medication instructions and a name/address

recall of words from a list after a delay

using blocks to re-create a visual design

nonverbal pattern analysis

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 19 of 28

•

•

•

•

•

•

mentally rotating pieces of an object to match a stimulus

learning of everyday information

recall of everyday information

ability to express why basic everyday scenarios could be unsafe

basic knowledge of societal rules and customs

delayed recognition of everyday information

Arthur produced Average scores on the following measures:

•

•

•

•

•

•

verbal reasoning

speeded comparison of visual designs

finding a shared similarity between two words

expressive vocabulary

knowledge of geographical, historical, and scientific facts

learning of a list of words over several trials

Adaptive Functioning

I administered the Vineland 3 Comprehensive Interview to Arthur’s mother. I instructed her to provide responses that

were consistent with her most recent direct memories of his functioning, which was before he moved to Texas when

he was about 20 years old. I frequently reminded her and framed questions to indicate that this was the time period

she should consider when answering a question. Instead of comparing these scores with Arthur’s current age (which

would have often led to lower scores due to increased expectations of functioning with age even in those with

intellectual disability), I used the normative database for a 20-year-old, which is the age he was during that time period.

Vineland-3 scores are on the same scale as an IQ score, and both follow the bell curve. As shown in the graph below,

Arthur’s adaptive functioning composite score of 54 is worse than over 99% of his peers, while his IQ is between 1.5

and 2 standard deviations lower than his peers.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 20 of 28

Arthur’s Vineland-3 scores are outlined in the graphs below. As shown in the graphs below, Arthur’s adaptive

functioning scores are much more similar to those of an intellectually disabled sample than those of the general

population. He produced especially low scores on measures of daily living and socialization, while communication

was a relative strength, which is consistent with his IQ score profile.

Arthur's Adaptive Scores Compared with other populations

120

Standard Score

100

80

60

40

20

0

Arthur

IQ 50-70

Daily Living Skills

Socialization

Arthur

IQ 50-70

g

Co

pi

n

re

isu

Pl

ay

/L

e

rs

on

al

In

t

er

pe

ty

Co

m

m

un

i

tic

Do

m

es

Pe

rs

on

al

siv

e

Ex

pr

es

W

rit

te

n

Arthur's Adaptive Scores Compared with other populations

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Re

ce

pt

ive

v-Scale Score

Communication

Age-Matched Control

Age-Matched Control

Arthur’s adaptive functioning scores are typical for an individual with intellectual disability. As shown in the graphs

below, his scores on all three domains of the Vineland-3 are rather typical of someone with intellectual disability but

are still far discrepant from the general population. The graphs below show mean scores of 47, 50, and 54, which were

the average Vineland-3 scores in the intellectually disabled population, but all of these are lower than 99% of the

general population.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 21 of 28

FORMULATION

Mr. Arthur Burton is a 54-year-old man whose history and neuropsychological test results indicate significant

limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive functioning since childhood. These characteristics, in my opinion,

are sufficient to meet both the AAIDD and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability. Neither of these two

sets of criteria have a hard cutoff for an IQ score, and equal or more weight is placed on the individual’s adaptive

functioning when considering impairment. Especially in light of his history and poor performance on measures of

suggestibility and social judgment—which span both intellectual and adaptive domains—Arthur’s symptoms and

history fit squarely within the definition of intellectual disability.

LIMITATIONS IN INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING:

Arthur’s Full Scale IQ range of 73 and 82—when accounting for inherent variance in test scores—is in the typical

(albeit higher end) range of individuals with mild intellectual disability. As is typical for persons with intellectual

disability, Arthur’s cognitive abilities involve areas of both strengths and limitations, but his strengths do not take

away from his deficits.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 22 of 28

Arthur’s neuropsychological test scores indicated that he had areas of strength, and this is expected in a comprehensive

assessment of intellectual disability.45 Specifically, he exhibited low scores on tests of learning, reasoning,

comprehending complex ideas, problem solving, and suggestibility, all of which are examples of significant

limitations in intellectual functioning in the AAIDD manual. In his book about intellectual disability,46 Dr. Chafetz

describes three hypothetical cases in which an individual has an IQ score of 67, but each patient has a vastly different

cognitive profile. One such example includes someone with higher verbal abilities (VCI=83) and lower working

memory scores (WMI = 66), which is very similar to Arthur’s score profile.

Research findings have also highlighted strengths and weaknesses in functioning of individuals with ID who have

higher IQs (i.e., above 70). As with Arthur, it is not uncommon for someone with ID to be employed, but the level of

jobs that someone with ID procures is substantially lower than the general population. Individuals with ID who have

relatively higher IQs have also been shown to be especially vulnerable to risky behaviors due to interpersonal

incompetence/social judgment and a general assumption that they are functioning at a higher level than they really

are. They are more apt to do what others tell them to do in an effort to fit in or be liked, and they are especially prone

to acquiescing to authority.47

While Arthur would meet criteria for intellectual disability even without consideration of the “Flynn Effect,” it is

important to account for other sources of error variance in an IQ score. Research has found48 and replicated49,50 that

an IQ score is expected to be overly inflated by 0.3 points per year, or 3 points per decade. In Arthur’s case, this means

that factoring the Flynn effect to his score of 77 would be equivalent to a score of 71.5 (0.3 x 17 years since the WAISIV was normed), with a SEM range of 66.5 to 76.5. The DSM-5-TR acknowledges the “Flynn Effect” as a factor that

may affect test scores. While it is not standard practice to simply “adjust” an IQ score per se, it is recommended to

report IQ scores as obtained and be prepared to address those factors that might affect their reliability.51 Especially in

a case with a high stakes decision (such as a capital case or one related to eligibility for Social Security Disability or

special education services), it is recommended for IQ scores to be considered in the context of the Flynn effect.52

45

Schalock, R. L., Luckasson, R., & Tassé, M. J. (2021). Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and systems

of supports (12th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

https://www.aaidd.org/publications/bookstore-home/product-listing/intellectual-disability-definition-diagnosis-classification-andsystems-of-supports-12th-edition

46

Chafetz, M. (2015). Intellectual Disability: Criminal and Civil Forensic Issues. Oxford University Press.

47

Snell, M. E., Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, W. S., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W. H., Coulter, D. L., ... & Yeager, M. H. (2009).

Characteristics and needs of people with intellectual disability who have higher IQs. Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities, 47(3), 220-233.

48

Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological bulletin, 95(1), 29.

49

Young, G. W. (2012). A More Intelligent and Just Atkins: Adjusting for the Flynn Effect in Capital Determinations of Mental

Retardation or Intellectual Disability. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65, 615.

50

Trahan, L. H., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., & Hiscock, M. (2014). The Flynn effect: a meta-analysis. Psychological

bulletin, 140(5), 1332.

51

Hagan, L. D., Drogin, E. Y., & Guilmette, T. J. (2010). IQ scores should not be adjusted for the Flynn effect in capital punishment

cases. Journal of psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 474-476.

52

Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., & Hughes, L. C. (2010). IQ scores should be corrected for the Flynn effect in high-stakes

decisions. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 469-473.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 23 of 28

Optimally, intelligence test norms must be periodically recalibrated to maintain their accuracy in reflecting an

individual’s level of intelligence. 53 The WAIS-5—the newest version of the IQ test—is set to be released in September

2024.54

Arthur’s WAIS-IV IQ score of 77—with a 95% confidence interval of 73 to 82—indicates significant intellectual

deficits and is consistent with a diagnosis of intellectual disability. Further, his “Flynn-adjusted” score equates to 71.5,

and applying ± 5 points for standard error of measurement would make his score range from 66.5 and 76.5. Additional

cognitive test scores highlight important areas of intellectual functioning, such as gullibility and problems with

memory, that are present. Arthur’s intellectual deficits are consistent with those described in the AAIDD and DSM5-TR criteria. Further, as cited in the Hall decision,55 an individual with an IQ score above 70 may properly be

diagnosed with intellectual disability if significant limitations in adaptive functioning also exist. As is illustrated in

the DSM-5, a person with an IQ score above 70 may have such severe adaptive behavior problems in social judgment,

social understanding, and other areas of adaptive functioning that the person’s actual functioning is comparable to that

of individuals with a lower IQ score.56

LIMITATIONS IN ADAPTIVE FUNCTIONING:

Upon review of information from multiple sources and contexts including a diagnostic interview with Arthur’s mother

and the administration of the Vineland 3 Comprehensive Interview, it is clear that Arthur’s background and test scores

indicate that he has had deficits in real-life situations and poor mastery of practical tasks since childhood. This

determination is based on multiple data points including information from various individuals, school records, and

standardized testing. The evidence from the Vineland-3 was consistent with evidence in Arthur’s background, as

described above.

Consistent with AAIDD and DSM-5-TR criteria, Arthur’s history and test scores indicate impairment in abstract

thinking, short-term memory, functional academic skills, social immaturity, communication problems, poor social

judgment, gullibility, and needing support for most complex daily living tasks. Arthur exhibited poor social

reasoning/practical judgment on a cognitive test in this area, and this was consistent with scores on the Vineland-3

and reports from several of his friends and family. Similarly, his friends and family described social naiveté and

53

Gresham, F. M. (2009). Interpretation of intelligence test scores in Atkins cases: Conceptual and psychometric issues. Applied

Neuropsychology, 16(2), 91-97.

54

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Cognition-%26-Neuro/WechslerAdult-Intelligence-Scale-%7C-Fifth-Edition/p/P100071002.html

55

Supreme Court of the United States. (2014). Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701.

56

American Psychological Association: Brief of American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Florida Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, and

National Association of Social Workers Florida Chapter as Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner, in Hall v. Florida, No. 12-10882

(U.S. March 3, 2014)

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 24 of 28

gullibility, and this was also highly significant on testing. Arthur’s Vineland-3 scores were strongly consistent with a

sample of intellectual disability, and all three of these scores were well below two standard deviations below the mean.

Arthur’s adaptive functioning scores are extremely low, but they are not so low that they are implausible. As shown

in the results above, it is not unusual for someone with ID to produce a standard score below 50 on the Vineland-3.

Similar to his IQ score profile, he produced a relative strength in the Communication domain, but this was still worse

than 98% of his peers. These scores are consistent with multiple other sources of information (e.g., former teachers,

classmates, romantic partners, and family members) and reflect clinically significant adaptive deficits that are likely

to interfere with his ability to learn and apply everyday knowledge to function at the level of a typical adult. Arthur’s

history and test results indicate limitations in conceptual (e.g., deficits in writing, arithmetic, memory, and reasoning),

social (e.g., immature social interactions, communication problems, poor understanding of risk, being easily

manipulated), and practical (e.g., limitations in complex daily living tasks such as grocery shopping or money

management and maintaining only a minimal level of employment) domains of adaptive functioning.

ONSET DURING THE DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD:

The totality of information available at the time of the present report includes information from several sources that

indicate that Arthur’s intellectual and adaptive deficits have been longstanding and present throughout his life. There

is no identifiable condition that would be expected to have led to otherwise explained Arthur’s history and test scores.

Thus, based on presently available information, Arthur’s intellectual and adaptive functioning deficits are known to

have begun during the developmental period and persisted throughout his life.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of findings from multiple sources including records, interviews, and test scores, it is my opinion57 that Arthur

Burton meets criteria for mild intellectual disability (F70). It is also my opinion that, when accounting for the outdated

norms on the WAIS-IV, the lower-end of the range of Arthur’s score on the WAIS-IV falls below 70. There is ample

evidence to conclude that he exhibits deficits in intellectual functions such as reasoning, judgment, and academic

learning along with deficits in adaptive functioning that resulted in failure to meet developmental and sociocultural

standards for personal independence and social responsibility.

57

References to verbiage such as “reasonable scientific certainty” have been excluded in light of a growing push to remove these

terms from forensic opinions. Nevertheless, should a certain statute require that an opinion is made to a reasonable degree of

psychological certainty, medical probability, or a similar term, the above opinions can be considered to have been rendered within

that guideline.

National Commission on Forensic Science (2016). Testimony Using the Term “Reasonable Scientific Certainty.”

https://www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs/page/file/641276/download;

Epstein, J. M. (2018). Reasonable Certainty: A Term It Is Certainly Reasonable to Repudiate. Crim. Just., 33, 39.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 25 of 28

The conclusions, opinions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on information that was available

at the time of this report’s preparation. Should additional information be forthcoming from any source, these

conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are subject to review and revision.

____________________________

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Board Certified Clinical Neuropsychologist

Licensed Clinical Psychologist

Attachment: Tabulated results

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 26 of 28

TABLE OF TEST RESULTS58:

*** The numeric data presented below is intended only for use by qualified professionals and should not be interpreted without

consideration of all the information that is contained in the rest of the neuropsychological report. ***

Adj

Test Name

--

b Test

E-Score

WAIS-IV

Verbal Comprehension

Perceptual Reasoning

Working Memory

Processing Speed

Full Scale IQ

Vineland-3

Communication

Daily Living

Socialization

ABC

RIST-2

GWH

OIO

WRAT-5

Word Reading

Arithmetic (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

Digit Span (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

RDS

A

A

A

A

A

A

Raw

Standard Score

Percentile

Val

52

--

--

P

25

19

10

13

67

91

79

71

81

77

27

8

3

10

6

29

21

20

157

68

35

54

54

2

<1

<1

<1

48

73

108

70

69

2

49

85

16

8

75

5

18

7

75

--

5

--

A

Symbol Search (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

26

90

25

A

Coding (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

40

75

5

A

Similarities (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

22

90

25

A

D-KEFS Word Context Test

Total Consecutively Correct

21

95

37

Consistently Correct Ratio

Correct-to-incorrect

84

2

90

--

25

13

58

P

“Val” refers to measures of performance validity, with P signifying a “pass” and F signifying a “fail.” A single pass or fail does

not constitute a decision on the validity of the overall assessment; please refer to the test validity section for more details. For

adjusted scores, A = age, S = sex, and E = education. Validity measures and score adjustments were selected a priori.

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 27 of 28

A

A

A

A

---

A

A

A

A

ASE

A

A

A

A

A

D-KEFS 20 Questions

Initial Abstraction

Vocabulary (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

Information (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

NAB Language Module

Oral Production

Auditory Comprehension

Naming

Writing

Bill Payment

Rey Word Recognition Test

Total Correct

TOMM

Trial 1

Trial 2

Retention

NAB Daily Living Memory

Immediate Recall

Delayed Recall

Retention

Recognition

RAVLT

Total 1-5

DR

RC

Memory Efficiency Score

WRAML-3

Story Memory Immediate

Story Memory Verbatim

Story Memory Gist

Story Memory Delayed

Story Memory Recognition

Block Design (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

Matrix Reasoning (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

Visual Puzzles (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

NAB Daily Living

Virginia

1, 3, 5, 5

85

16

34

95

37

10

152

14

82

27

8

90

61

87

61

75

64

25

<1

18

<1

4

<1

12

55

<1

11

--

--

P

50

50

50

----

----

P

P

P

37

11

73

8

85

81

---

16

10

8

16

9, 8, 8, 10, 10

5

73

1.02

96

81

76

79

38

10

5

8

25

16

9

20

28

80

85

75

75

75

9

16

5

5

5

28

85

16

9

80

9

7

80

9

P

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Forensic Neuropsychological Evaluation of Arthur Burton

Page 28 of 28

A

A

A

Driving Scenes

Bill Payment

Memory Immediate Recall

Memory Delayed Recall

Map Reading

Judgment

Test of Practical Judgment

Total Score

Comprehension (WAIS-IV)

Total Score

Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales

Immediate Recall

Delayed Recall

Yield 1

Yield 2

Shift

Total Suggestibility

59

29

12

37

11

2

13

66

55

85

81

66

87

1

<1

16

10

1

18

13

44

<1

18

85

16

12

5

5

10

9

14

81

67

102

117

130

118

10

1

56*59

87*

98*

89*

* indicates that a higher score is considered to be worse

Virginia

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

Maryland

Washington, DC

Nationwide

EXHIBIT A

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS

I am a clinical psychologist licensed in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC. I am also

a diplomate in the specialty of clinical neuropsychology from the American Board of Professional

Psychology. I have completed additional trainings in adult forensic assessment from the University

of Virginia Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy which qualifies me as an approved

forensic examiner in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am also a member of the Forensic

Evaluation Oversight Panel for the Commonwealth. I work as a clinical and forensic

neuropsychologist in independent practice. In my role, I routinely evaluate patients with a broad

array of mental health diagnoses (both cognitive and psychiatric in nature) to determine their

diagnosis, recommendations for treatment, and, when applicable, the context of their condition in

various legal contexts. I have delivered trainings in clinical and forensic neuropsychology to

judges, attorneys, mental health professionals, and the general public. Finally, I have been

qualified as an expert in various state and federal courts in a retained and court-ordered capacity.

____________________________

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP

Board Certified Clinical Neuropsychologist

Licensed Clinical Psychologist

EXHIBIT B

JONATHAN DERIGHT, PHD, ABPP-CN

CONTACT

Office

1464 Ingleside Ave / McLean, Virginia / 22101

Mailing

1390 Chain Bridge Rd # 85 / McLean, Virginia / 22101

Phone/Fax

703-957-7300 (P)

Email

deright@braindiagnosis.com

256-957-7300 (SMS)

844-238-6630 (F)

EDUCATION

2014 – 2016

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Clinical Neuropsychology

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Baltimore, Maryland

2008 – 2014

Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology

Syracuse University (APA Accredited)

Syracuse, New York

2008 – 2011

Master of Science in Clinical Psychology

Syracuse University (APA Accredited)

Syracuse, New York

2004 – 2008

Bachelor of Science in Neuroscience

University of Rochester

Rochester, New York

LICENSURE & CREDENTIALING

2019 – Present

Diplomate, American Board of Professional Psychology: Clinical Neuropsychology

Certification Number: 8900

2016 – Present

Commonwealth of Virginia

License Number: 0810005431

2016 – Present

District of Columbia

License Number: PSY1001167

2016 – Present

State of Maryland

License Number: 05722

2021 – Present

PSYPACT

Authority to Practice Interjurisdictional Telepsychology (APIT)

Curriculum Vitae – June 2024

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP-CN

Temporary Authorization to Practice (TAP)

Authorized to practice in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina,

Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,

Wisconsin, & Wyoming

2016 – Present

National Register Health Service Psychologist

Registrant Number: 55393

CLINICAL EXPERIENCE

2020 - Present

President & Clinical and Forensic Neuropsychologist,

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

McLean, Virginia

2016 – Present

Clinical and Forensic Neuropsychologist,

Woodbridge Psychological Associates, PC

McLean, Virginia / Woodbridge, Virginia

2014 – 2016

Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of Medical Psychology

Department of Psychiatry, Division of Medical Psychology

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Director: Jason Brandt, Ph.D., ABPP-CN

2013 – 2014

Predoctoral Intern, Psychology Internship Program – Adult Track

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York

Director: Roger Greenberg, Ph.D.

2012 – 2013

Forensic Psychology Extern, Central New York Psychiatric Center

New York State Office of Mental Health, Marcy, New York

Director: Nichole Marioni, Ph.D., ABPP-FP

2010 – 2013

Psychology Extern, Psychological Services Center

Syracuse University Department of Psychology, Syracuse, New York

Director: Kevin Antshel, Ph.D.

2011 – 2012;

2009 – 2010

Neuropsychology Extern, Neuropsychology Assessment Program

SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York

Director: Dominic Carone, Ph.D., ABPP-CN

2004 – 2007

Medical Assistant, Emergency Department

Newark-Wayne Memorial Hospital, Newark, NY

Page 2 of 7

Curriculum Vitae – June 2024

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP-CN

ADDITIONAL TRAININGS

2023

AAFP: Assessment of Competence to Stand Trial

4-hour online course taught by Lori Hauser, PhD, ABPP-FP

2023

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care

6-week online course through the MIT Sloan School of Management

2021

Conducting Financial Capacity Assessments for Older Adults

10-week training course through Wayne State University

2021

Evaluation of Defendant's Intent under Virginia Code §19.2-271.6

1-day training through the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, University

of Virginia

2017

Mental Competency in Immigration Review

Sterling Medical/U.S. Department of Justice Initiative, Baltimore, Maryland

1-day training: Preparation for mental competency assessments to assist the DOJ

Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)

2016

Adult Basic Forensic Evaluation required according to Code of Virginia §19.2169.1 regarding evaluation of trial competence and § 19.2-169.5 regarding

evaluation of sanity at the time of the offense

5-day training through the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, University

of Virginia

2016

Conducting Mental Health Evaluations for Capital Sentencing Proceedings

2-day training through the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, University

of Virginia

EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS

Dr. DeRight is an approved forensic evaluator for the Commonwealth of Virginia, which allows him to be a court appointed

evaluator in competency to stand trial and mental sanity at the time of the offense evaluations. His credentials and

testimony have been accepted in every court or proceeding in which he has been offered as an expert, including the

following:

United States District Court (DC, EDVA, WDVA, MD)

Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Loudoun County Circuit Court

Prince William County Circuit Court

Arlington County Circuit Court

Alexandria Circuit Court

Alexandria General District Court

Alexandria Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court

Mecklenburg County District Court

Bedford County Circuit Court

Page 3 of 7

Curriculum Vitae – June 2024

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP-CN

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

2014 - 2016

Research Fellow, Division of Medical Psychology

Department of Psychiatry

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Principal Investigators: Jason Brandt, PhD, David Schretlen, PhD & Vidya Kamath, PhD

2008 – 2013

Research Associate, Psychophysiology Lab

Department of Psychology

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York

Principal Investigator: Randall Jorgensen, PhD

2010 – 2012

Research Associate, Translational Neuroscience Lab

Department of Psychology

Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York

Principal Investigator: Stephanie Cacioppo, Ph.D.

2006 – 2008

Research Assistant, Alzheimer’s Disease Lab

Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences

University of Rochester, Rochester, New York

Principal Investigator: Robert Chapman, Ph.D.

2007

Research Assistant, Molecular Biology Lab

Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

Principal Investigator: Ella Bossy-Wetzel, Ph.D.

2004 – 2006

Patient Enroller, Emergency Department

Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester, NY

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS

Buchholz, A. S., DeRight, J., Gerner, G. J., & Schretlen, D. J. (2023). Do “effort tests” really test effort? Neuropsychology,

37(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000865

Kamath, V., Chaney, G-A., DeRight, J., & Onyike, C.U. (2018). A meta-analysis of neuropsychological, social cognitive,

and olfactory functioning in the behavioral and language variants of frontotemporal dementia. Psychological Medicine,

Dec 6, 1-12.

DeRight, J., Jorgensen, R.S., & Cabral, M. (2015). Composite cardiovascular risk scores and neuropsychological test

performance: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 9(3), 344-357. doi:10.1007/s12160-014-9681-0

DeRight, J. & Jorgensen, R.S. (2015). “I just want my research credit”: Frequency of suboptimal effort in a non-clinical

healthy undergraduate sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(1), 101-117. doi:10.1080/13854046.2014.989267

DeRight, J. & Carone, D.A. (2015). Assessment of effort in children: A systematic review. Child Neuropsychology,

21(1), 1-24. doi:10.1080/09297049.2013.864383

Page 4 of 7

Curriculum Vitae – June 2024

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP-CN

BOOKS, CHAPTERS, AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

DeRight, J. & Vartkessian, E. (2022). Working with the Expert. In E. Kelley (Ed.), Representing People with Dementia:

A Practical Guide for Criminal Defense Lawyers (pp. 141-153). American Bar Association. ISBN: 1639051325

DeRight, J. (2022). Essential Neuropsychology: A Concise Handbook for Adult Practitioners. Springer Nature:

Switzerland. ISBN 978-3030853716

DeRight, J. (2019). History of “Frontal” Syndromes and Executive Dysfunction. In J. Bogousslavsky, F. Boller, & M.

Iwata (Eds), A History of Neuropsychology: Frontiers in Neurology and Neuroscience, Vol 44 (pp 100–107). Karger.

DOI: 10.1159/000494957

DeRight, J. (2014). Detection of Dementia Risk in Primary Care: Preliminary Investigation of a Compositive Dementia

Risk Score in Veterans. Dissertations, 142.

DeRight, J. (2011). Feedback, Task Demand, and Cognitive Test Performance in College Students. Master’s Thesis.

POSTER PRESENTATIONS

Chaney, G.A., DeRight, J., Aita, S., Onyike, C., & Kamath, V. (2017, February). A meta-analysis of neuropsychological

functioning, social cognition, and olfaction in the frontotemporal dementias. Poster presented at the 45th International

Neuropsychological Society Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Bagger, J., DeRight, J., & Brandt, J. (2017, February). The Effect of Generation Gap on Informant Ratings using the

IQCODE in a General Population Sample. Poster presented at the 45th International Neuropsychological Society

Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

DeRight, J. & Jorgensen, R.S. (2012, November). Composite cardiovascular risk scores and neuropsychological test

performance: A meta-analytic review. Poster presented at the 32nd National Academy of Neuropsychology Conference,

Nashville, Tennessee.

DeRight, J., Jorgensen, R.S., Lewandowski, L., & Ortigue, S. (2011, November). The effects of feedback, state anxiety,

and gender on neuropsychological test performance. Poster presented at the 31st National Academy of Neuropsychology

Conference, Marco Island, Florida.

INVITED TALKS & APPEARANCES

DeRight, J. (2024, June). Responsibly Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Enhance the Practice of Clinical

Neuropsychology. CE Workshop at the 2024 American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Annual Meeting,

Scottsdale, Arizona.

DeRight, J. (2023, November). Plenary: Neuropsychological Testing in Capital Cases. National Association of Criminal

Defense Lawyers/Advancing Real Change Inc./Arizona Capital Representation Project BYOC Capital Defense Training.

Orlando, Florida.

DeRight, J. & Shultz, E. (2023, June). Selecting and Effectively Using Mental Health Experts. 2023 Holistic Defense and

Leadership Conference. Baltimore, Maryland.

DeRight, J. (2023, March). Application of Clinical Neuropsychology to the Forensic Setting. Johns Hopkins Medical

Psychology Seminar at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

DeRight, J. (2023, July). Signs of a Psychopath (Season 6). Consulting Expert for Red Marble Media, Inc.

DeRight, J. (2023, January). Signs of a Psychopath (Season 5). Consulting Expert for Red Marble Media, Inc.

Page 5 of 7

Curriculum Vitae – June 2024

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP-CN

DeRight, J. (2022, October). Signs of a Psychopath (Season 4). Consulting Expert for Red Marble Media, Inc.

DeRight, J., Jackson, L., Cassis, A., Perme, D., & Gilbertsen, T. (2022, September. Aging Attorneys: A Multi-Disciplinary

Examination of the Clinical, Legal and Professional Challenges & Benefits. 2022 National Conference for Lawyer

Assistance Programs. Washington, DC.

DeRight, J. (2021, October). Signs of a Psychopath (Season 3). Consulting Expert for Red Marble Media, Inc.

DeRight, J., Jackson, L., Cassis, A., Perme, D., & Gilbertsen, T. (2021, September). Our Aging Legal Profession: Working

with The Benefits and The Challenges. Panel presentation to District of Columbia Superior Court Judges.

DeRight, J. & Shultz, E. (2020, November). Selecting and Effectively Using Mental Health Experts. National Alliance of

Sentencing Advocates & Mitigation Specialists (NASAMS) Certificate Program.

DeRight, J., Jackson, L., Cassis, A., Perme, D., & Gilbertsen, T. (2020, September). Our Aging Legal Profession: Working

with The Benefits and The Challenges. DC Bar CLE course.

DeRight, J. (2020, July). The aging workforce: Distinguishing between normal and abnormal signs in the workplace.

PsyBar 2020 Webinar Series.

DeRight, J. (2020, May). A Primer on Neuropsychology. Advancing Real Change, Inc.

DeRight, J. (2018, April). A primer on neuropsychological evaluations following stroke. Sentara Northern Virginia

Medical Center, Woodbridge, Virginia.

DeRight, J. (2017, February). Beyond classification: Dimensional measurement of effort in neuropsychology. James

Madison University, graduate course in neuropsychological assessment.

Schretlen, D.J. & DeRight, J. (2016, June). Reconsidering the clinical implications and assessment of cognitive effort in

neuropsychology. CE Workshop at the 2016 American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Annual Meeting, Chicago,

Illinois.

DeRight, J. & Puente, A.N. (2016, February) Differential diagnosis of dementia. Kennedy Krieger Institute

Neuropsychology Continuing Education Lecture Series, Baltimore, Maryland.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

2024 – Present

Clinical Professor in Clinical Psychology

The George Washington University

2020 – 2021

Neuropsychology Extern Supervisor

Precision Neuropsychology, PLLC

2017 – 2018

Neuropsychology Extern Supervisor

Woodbridge Psychological Associates, PC

2015 – 2016

Neuropsychology Extern Supervisor

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

2015

MCAT Instructor

Odyssey Program

Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University

2014;

Adjunct Professor

Page 6 of 7

Curriculum Vitae – June 2024

Jonathan DeRight, PhD, ABPP-CN

2013

Assessment in Counseling (graduate course)

Department of Counseling and Human Services, Syracuse University

2008 – 2014

Elite Course Instructor

GRE and GMAT Preparatory Courses

Kaplan Inc.

2008 – 2010

Teaching Assistant

Foundations of Human Behavior (undergraduate course)

Department of Psychology, Syracuse University

SERVICE

2022 – Present

Legislative Action and Advocacy Committee, National Academy of Neuropsychology

2019 – Present

Forensic Evaluation Oversight Panel Member, Commonwealth of Virginia

2016 – Present

Ad Hoc Pro Bono Case Work

2015 – Present

Ad Hoc Peer Reviewer

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Applied Neuropsychology, European Journal of Neurology, BMJ Open,

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

2009 – 2013

Student Volunteer, National Academy of Neuropsychology Conference

2013

Admissions Recruitment Coordinator, Department of Psychology,

Syracuse University

2012 – 2013

Clinical Representative, Psychology Action Committee, Syracuse University

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

2009 – Present

National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN)

2011 - Present

International Neuropsychological Society (INS)

2013 - Present

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN)

2018 - Present

American Psychological Association (APA)

2018 - Present

American Psychology-Law Society (APA Division 41)

2020 - Present

Society for Clinical Neuropsychology (APA Division 40)

HONORS AND RECOGNITION

2016

Early Career Psychologist Credentialing Scholarship

2012

National Academy of Neuropsychology Student Poster Award

2008

Shari & Joel Beckman Scholarship

2004

New York Lottery “Leaders of Tomorrow” Award

2004

Bausch & Lomb Honorary Science Award

Page 7 of 7