A rare empaneling of the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard more arguments on whether convicted murderer Danny Lee Hill can be executed because of an intellectual disability.

For almost 90 minutes using virtual technology, more than a dozen federal judges questioned two lawyers about the psychological testing and expert opinion deciding the intellectual status of the defendant who was sentenced to death more than three decades ago for the 1985 rape and murder of 12-year-old Raymond Fife of Warren.

Vicki Werneke, assistant federal public defender for the U.S. Northern Ohio District, and Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers each presented a five-minute argument stating their case, while each judge had three minutes to ask questions.

Werneke’s discourse centered on how through the years, neither side disputed the low IQ or whether Hill had academic trouble.

“Danny Lee Hill has been intellectually disabled his entire life, and his entire adult life has been spent on death row,” Werneke said, noting that a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that an intellectually disabled inmate can’t be executed.

The defense attorney noted that during the trial level, experts had testified to Hill’s disability but at the time, there was no restriction for the death penalty.

“The school records and psychological evaluations were clear that (Hill’s) disability goes back to age 6,” Werneke said.

Werneke argued the Hill case is similar to a Louisiana decision that went the defendant’s way. However, Flowers disagreed, saying the circumstances were different.

A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit had ruled in 2019 that executing Hill would be unconstitutional, but the Ohio Attorney General’s office had sought this rare “en banc” full empaneling of the court. One justice — Eric Earl Murphy — recused himself from the hearing because he had argued the case against Hill when he was state solicitor general.

Flowers, Murphy’s successor, maintained that in a hearing to determine Hill’s disability on the local level, two of three experts had found him not to be intellectually disabled.

“(In the hearing to determine intellectual disability) Hill didn’t carry his burden,” Flowers said, noting the court’s job was to determine whether the Ohio appellate court in 2008 had erred in declaring Hill mentally disabled.

One jurist, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, even noted that the defense attorney had an “uphill battle” because of the testimony of the psychological experts.

Another judge — Raymond Kethledge — asked Werneke if any other court had been unreasonable if they would go against the opinion of experts.

“This case really is exploring uncharted territory,” Kethledge said.

Court experts believe the full court will take a few months to study Wednesday’s arguments and render a decision.

Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins, who watched the hearing online with his assistant prosecutor Ashleigh Musick, said he was delighted the full 6th Circuit could hear the case.

“We are in good hands with the Ohio Attorney General’s office and especially Ben Flowers,” Watkins said. “We are cautiously optimistic but are making no predictions.”

Another interested observer was Raymond Fife’s 80-year-old mother, Miriam, who noted that she liked that Flowers had fewer questions posed to him by the judges.

“This has been the same stuff we’ve been going through all along,” Miriam Fife said. “But I guess the only difference was all these judges asking questions. I respect other people’s opinions, but sometime I think some don’t use common sense.”

Fife, who said she expects a decision in the spring, said she usually appears for these arguments in person, but it was different hearing Wednesday’s debate online.

“I think it’ll be over in six months, but hopefully it will be sooner,” she said.

One judge, Julia Gibbons, provided levity when twice she had been muted out of the proceedings. But when she came back, Gibbons noted that she broke her mouse.