CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

After The Trial Blog

The After The Trial blog presents insights on ongoing and recent trials around the state of Alabama, including weekly criminal law round-ups.

High Court Reverses Another Alabama Death Sentence

J.D. Lloyd - Monday, June 19, 2017


McWilliams v. Dunn, Comm’r ALDOC

 

Question Presented: Did Alabama courts wrongfully conclude McWilliams was not denied meaningful assistance from a mental-health expert under Ake v. Oklahoma?

 

Facts

 

McWilliams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for a 1994 robbery/rape/murder that took place in a convenience store in Tuscaloosa. McWilliams’ mental health was explored in depth during the course of his trial. He was examined by a “Lunacy Commission” composed of three doctors at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility. After he was convicted and after the jury recommended he be sentenced to death by a vote of 10-2, McWilliams asked for neurological and neuropsychological exams. The court order a Dr. John Goff, a neuropsychologist with the State, to examine McWilliams. However, Dr. Goff’s findings were not based on a complete review of his mental health records. His report was given to McWilliams only 48 hours before the judicial sentencing phase. On the eve of the judicial sentencing hearing, Taylor Hardin and Holman Prison sent defense counsel updated records which had been subpoenaed months before. Trial counsel continuously asked the trial court for an independent expert and a continuance, but these requests were rejected.

 

Eventually, McWilliams case arrived in federal court when he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Among other issues, McWilliams argued that the State deprived him of Due Process under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). McWilliams argued this denial was a violation of “clearly established federal law” and thus entitled him to habeas corpus relief. The district court denied the request.

 

Ake v. Oklahoma

In Ake, the Court ruled that the Constitution requires the State to provide an indigent defendant with “assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition” if the defendant’s sanity is in question. The ruling was framed around the concept of the “meaningful access to justice.” The expert should “assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.”

 

Eleventh Circuit Ruling

The Eleventh Circuit denied relief. Initially, the Court concluded that McWilliams failed to meet his burden of showing that “clearly established federal law” entitled him to an independent expert. The Eleventh Circuit noted a split in the circuits regarding whether Ake requires the appointment of an independent expert and that the Supreme Court had never resolved that split. Because the split existed, there was, in the Court’s opinion, no clearly established federal law that could entitled McWilliams relief on this claim. Additionally, the court concluded that the State courts’ determination that Ake had been satisfied was likewise not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

 

Judge Wilson’s dissent

Judge Wilson believed that Ake was not satisfied here. First, the State failed to provide meaningful psychological assistance. McWilliams did not receive any expert assistance until after the sentencing hearing held before the jury. Second, the assistance McWilliams received from Dr. Goff was based on an incomplete review of the mental health records available for consideration. In Judge Wilson’s opinion, this paltry showing did not satisfy Ake and warrants habeas corpus relief.

 

Supreme Court Ruling

The Court ruled that in the particular circumstances of this case, McWilliams’ rights under Ake were not protected. The Court declined to answer the more specific question of whether Ake requires appointment of a mental health expert who is independent of the prosecution because Alabama failed to satisfy “Ake’s most basic requirements.”

 

The Court rejected Alabama’s argument that it complied with Ake by allowing Dr. Goff to examine McWilliams. Ake requires more: “[1] examination and assist in [2] evaluation, [3] preparation, and [4] presentation of the defense.” The Court concluded that even if it were to assume the State satisfied the “examination” requirement, it completely failed to satisfy the last three prongs.

 

While the 11th Circuit had ruled that whatever error McWilliams suffered was “harmless,” the Supreme Court noted that ruling was limited to just the question of whether the requested continuance would have made a difference in McWilliams sentencing. The Court pointed out that on remand the 11th Circuit should consider how the State’s failure to guarantee the remaining three prongs of Ake would have made a difference in McWilliams’ case.

 

Dissent (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch)

The dissent would have had the Court address the narrow question of whether it is clearly established federal law that Ake requires the appointment of an independent mental health expert. The dissent complains that Alabama didn’t have a chance to address the question the Court actually addressed. However, this simply isn’t true. Alabama briefed the merits of the underlying Ake claim at the merits stage.

 

The 11th Circuit on Remand

The Eleventh Circuit is likely to kick the case back down to the district court to address the full Ake question. It’s hard to see McWilliams’ death sentence standing when the Supreme Court has all but said 3 aspects of Ake weren’t satisfied here.

 

If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.


 

Comments
Post has no comments.
Post a Comment




Captcha Image

Trackback Link
http://www.afterthetrial.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=22531&PostID=977775&A=Trackback
Trackbacks
Post has no trackbacks.

Recent Posts


Tags

murder Sardis Alabama campbell v state pinson alabama domestic violence Malone v State § 13A-3-23(d) immunity hearing capital punishment illegal gun carry prostitution sting the mannequin challenge Fentanyl identity theft montgomery alabama § 13A-3-23 pruitt v state judicial override Etowah County Alabama, robberies illegal gambling public assistance fraud ferguson missouri arson levins v state drug busts capital murder state of arizona kimberly alabama hanceville alabama lamar county apprendi v new jersey fairfield alabama, aiding and abetting mount olive alabama narcotics investigation minor offenses Alonzo Ephraim Jefferson County Alabama court of criminal appeal releases eric sterling adnan syed, felony assaults baltimore city circuit court mobile alabama Rule 32 springville alabama heflin alabama netflix Wesley Adam Whitworth alfonso morris moore v texas avondale alabama self defense boaz alabama Pleasant Grove Alabama pelham alabama gun rights ring v arizona huntsville alabama aziz sayyed hurst mandamus blountsville alabama hall v florida Briarwood Presbyterian Church maryland court of special appeals drug crimes christmas shooting fraud greene county alabama constitutional violations alabama criminal law roundup fourth amendment peyton pruitt john earle redfearn IV v state nathan woods shooting death asia mcclain bailey v us shoplifting npr drug seizure Joshua Reese Thomas Hardiman OJ Simpson Made in America trussville alabama executions Adamsville alabama mulga alabama dora alabama pell city alabama lethal injection assault SCOTUS, talladega superspeedway stoves v state Woods v State theft of property Easter mike gilotti Samuel Alito making a murderer utah v strieff eighth amendment, armed robbery shooting florence alabama parole Neil Gorsuch department of justice, habeas corpus relief Lucky D Arcade second amendment st clair county alabama hurst v florida concealed carry gun control debtor prison sheffield v state OJ Simpson court systems, gadsden alabama attempted murder benjamin todd acton mcwilliams v dunn Hillary Clinton, steve avery fraudulent checks heritage christian university 28 U.S.C. § 2254 criminal justice ake v oklahoma road rage mccalla alabama dothan alabama domestic abuse drug possession, morgan county alabama editorial endangerment of a child Kay Ivey LWOP alabama ex parte briseno dekalb county alabama calhoun county alabama bomb threat economic growth underage drinking Glaze v State shelby county Alabaster alabama New York Times Shonda Walker, debit card skimming scams baldwin county alabama birchfield v north dakota nicholas hawkins Tommy Arthur fake kidnapping, Eutaw Alabama Dylann Roof abduction lethal injection drugs fort payne alabama limestone county alabama homicide rate terell corey mcmullin negligent homicide keith v state Guy Terrell Junior sarah koenig Donald Trump, animal cruelty theft betton v state kidnapping marion county Walker County Alabama cullman alabama foley alabama Stephen Breyer sentencing law and policy blog summaries tuscaloosa alabama cherokee county alabama christian guitierez operation crackdown eleventh circuit ruling criminal mischief midazolam brady v maryland drug smuggling sexual assault fultondale alabama street racing home repair fraud Gardendale Alabama oneonta alabama West Alabama state of alabama bernard v north dakota homicide abuse bessemer alabama CCA update hoax destructive devices huntsville department of justice death penalty Ingmire v State moving violations William Pryor smith v state serial 2016 election, drug activity brian fredick lucas texas warrantless blood draws embezzlement madison alabama scotus burglary jerry bohannon hoover alabama brendan dassey adger alabama crime of passion decatur alabama south carolina battles v state warrior alabama towles v state clarence thomas Justice Sotomayor implied consent court of criminal appeals legende v state brendan dassey, steve avery, making a murderer, scotus, netflix eugene lee jones v state operation bullseye utah supreme court car accident edwards v arizona sixth amendment constitutional law, anniston alabama, alabama supreme court Kareem Dacar Gaymon Benn v State morris alabama kenneth eugene billups brookside alabama stanley brent chapman mountain brook alabama russell calhoun rainbow city alabama Marengo County Alabama strickland v washington albertville alabama capital offenses banville v state tarrant alabama alabama law enforcement agency criminal justice reform, social media drug trafficking, beylund v north dakota lauderdale county alabama abandonment Mike Hubbard birmingham alabama Tracie Todd forced isolation death penalty, church robberies US Supreme Court Update blount county alabama breaking and entering unlawful manufacturing Xavier Beasley

Archive

DISCLAIMER

These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among  other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Get Free Legal Advice  Contact us for a complimentary legal consultation

I am interested in scheduling a free legal consultation and receiving additional information.

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Thank you, your  entry has been  received.

© 2017 The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |

 

As required by Rule 7.2(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.