CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


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.


J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, September 05, 2015

Ex Parte Jason Dean Tulley

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, September 05, 2015
Click the link below for more details on this recent Alabama Supreme Court decision. Tulley - AL SC - REVERSED


J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015

Alabama Courts Finally Adopt US Supreme Court Precedent 12 Years Later

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015
*This post contains more “mature” content than my usual posts, so please be aware before reading on* Law and justice concept, legal code Williams v. State of Alabama Background In two cases released on July 2, 2015, we see the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals finally have a chance to apply the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Lawrence v. Texas to a challenge of Alabama’s sexual misconduct statute, sec. 13A-6-65. In Lawrence, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’ anti-sodomy statute which only applied to homosexual conduct was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Williams, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained: “Section 13A-6-65(a)(3) provides: ‘A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if … [h]e or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64[, Ala. Code 1975]. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.’ The commentary to that statute notes that the specific subdivision ‘was changed by the legislature to make all homosexual conduct criminal, and consent is no defense.’ See Commentary to § 13A-6-65, Ala. Code 1975. Section 13A-6-60(2), Ala. Code 1975, defines ‘deviate sexual intercourse’ as ‘[a]ny act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.’ Williams – Conviction Reversed Williams was alleged to have sodomized another man against his will. He was prosecuted for first degree sodomy. At trial, Williams testified in his own defense and explained to the jury that he and the other man had engaged in consensual conduct. While the parties discussed how the jury should be instructed, the Court considered whether a sexual misconduct instruction should be given as a lesser-included offense of first-degree sodomy. Williams objected, arguing that in his case, a sexual misconduct instruction would allow the jury to convict him of consensual sodomy. Williams argued this conviction would be unconstitutional under Lawrence. The judge overruled the objection and Williams was convicted of sexual misconduct. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and rendered Williams’ conviction. The Court concluded that the sexual misconduct statute was unconstitutional under Lawrence as applied to Williams’ consensual conduct. Wesson – Conviction Affirmed Wesson was charged with engaging in acts of sodomy with a woman against her will. He was indicted on the charge of first-degree sodomy and sexual misconduct. Wesson pleaded guilty to the sexual misconduct charge and the sodomy charge was dismissed. He, like Williams, argued the sexual misconduct statue was unconstitutional as applied to him and appealed the constitutionality of his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. First, the Court rejected Wesson’s argument that the sexual misconduct statute was unconstitutional on it’s face. The Court concluded that Wesson didn’t raise that argument before the trial court, so they weren’t going to consider it on appeal. Next, the Court concluded that Wesson’s as-applied challenge under Lawrence was doomed to fail because he could not demonstrate that his conduct fell within the bounds of protected conduct described by Lawrence — namely, he couldn’t prove that the sex acts that occurred were consensual. Because he could not, Lawrence would not provide him any relief. Consent is Now a Defense After 12 years, an Alabama court has finally recognized that Lawrence prohibits the criminalization of consensual conduct covered by sec. 13A-6-65(a)(3).

SCOTUS – Administrative Searches – Los Angeles v. Patel

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015
The Court today released an interesting opinion on administrative searches in Los Angeles v. Patel. Under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, hotel operators are required to keep certain information in their hotel registry for 90 days. The Code requires the operators to allow the LAPD to inspect these registries upon request, or they could be charged with a misdemeanor. The hotels owners filed a facial challenge under the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the challenge, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding this statutory scheme authorized unconstitutional administrative searches. AFFIRMED. The Court noted that the statutory scheme forced hotel operators with an unconstitutional “Comply or Else” dilemma without affording them any opportunity for administrative review of the validity of the search. The Court concluded that an administrative search scheme that does not create a mechanism for operators to seek administrative review of “on-the-spot” searches violates the Fourth Amendment as it authorizes an unconstitutional search. The Court noted that any administrative search carried out with an administrative warrant or as an exception to the warrant requirement would comply with the Fourth Amendment. The opinion is available here:


J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015

Lethal Injection — Glossip v. Gross

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015



Oklahoma, like most states, uses a three-drug cocktail during its lethal injection procedure. The first drug induces unconsciousness. Until the manufacturer discontinued production, the drug used for this stage was a barbiturate, sodium thiopental or pentobarbital. The second drug is a paralytic that disables all muscular movements. The third drug stops the defendant’s heart.

Due to the manufacturer discontinuing production of the barbiturate used in the first stage of the execution protocol, Oklahoma adopted the used of midazolam, a strong sedative, for the first stage of the execution process. Oklahoma death-row inmates filed a challenge to the use of midazolam under 42 USC § 1983. Specifically, petitioners argued that the use of this drug would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel or unusual punishment because this drug will not sufficiently sedate the inmates so they will not feel pain in the execution process.

The district court denied relief on two grounds: (1) the petitioners failed to identify an alternative method of execution that presented a substantially less severe risk of pain; and (2) the petitioners failed to demonstrate the use of midazolam created a risk of severe pain. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.


In rejecting the inmates’ claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment, the Court reached two conclusions: (1) the drug does not create a substantial risk of severe pain; and (2) the petitioners failed to show a “known and reliable” alternative that presents a lower risk of pain.

1. The inmates failed to establish the use of midazolam creates a substantial risk of severe pain.

In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), another case challenging the constitutionality of the three-drug cocktail used in lethal injections, the Court held that in any Eighth Amendment challenges to an execution protocol, a challenger must show the method employed will create the great risk of causing pain. Here, the Court found that inmates completely failed to meet that showing. The Court concluded that ample evidence was presented that midazolam did not create a risk of severe pain necessary to grant the inmate’s request for a permanent injunction.

2. Petitioners failed to identify a “known and available alternative” to the execution methods that would have lower risks of pain

Baze also requires a challenger to show that the risk of harm was substantial in comparison to a known and available alternative method of execution. Here, the Court found the inmates failed to satisfy this requirement of Baze. While the inmates argued that Oklahoma could use sodium thiopental or pentobarbital as the first drug in the three-drug cocktail, the Court rejected this argument because it was all but conceded that these drugs were no longer available to the States.

Dissent — Justice Breyer no longer believes the death penalty is constitutional.

Justice Breyer authored a thoughtful dissent where he calls into question the constitutionality of the death penalty. He focused his criticism on three main points: (1) his belief that the process suffers from “serious unreliability;” (2) that the ultimate penalty is arbitrarily applied; and (3) that the long delays in sentencing and execution undermine the penological purpose of the penalty.

The opinion is available here:

Recent Posts


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



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.