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


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



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.