retardation undermine the strength of the procedural protections that our capital jurisprudence steadfastly guards.” Id. at 317, 122 S.Ct. at 2250, 153 L.Ed.2d at 348. As a consequence, a risk exists that the death penalty will be imposed despite factors that may call for a lesser penalty. Id. at 320, 122 S.Ct. at 2251, 153 L.Ed.2d at 350 (quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2965, 57 L.Ed.2d 973, 990 (1978)). Not only is there a possibility of false confessions, but also mentally retarded defendants may possess a lesser ability “to make a persuasive showing of mitigation in the face of prosecutorial evidence of one or more aggravating factors. Mentally retarded defendants may be less able to give meaningful assistance to their counsel 83, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (<HOLDING>). In both Ford and Atkins, the Court left “to
holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime holding that execution of a defendant who commits a capital crime while under the age of eighteen is prohibited by the eighth amendment holding that the execution of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time they committed capital crimes violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution holding that execution of the mentally retarded is prohibited under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution holding that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes violates eighth amendment