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.

Is the Supreme Court going to reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty?

J.D. Lloyd - Friday, January 15, 2016
A death-row Pennsylvania defendant has asked the United States Supreme Court to reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty. Relying upon the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment,” Shonda Walter contends that the time has come for the Court to end the practice once and for all.
 
Ms. Walter makes two arguments in petition asking the Supreme Court for review. First, she argues our standards of decency have evolved to a point where the death penalty is no longer “constitutionally sustainable.” Her petition cites the declining frequency in which the death penalty is imposed, the declining number of states where the death penalty is actually carried out, and the growing international consensus against the death penalty.
 
Second, Ms. Walter argues the legal framework surrounding the imposition of the death penalty is broken. Specifically, she contends that since the death penalty was reinstated almost 40 years ago, our laws have failed to ensure a system that’s reliable, consistent, not-arbitrary and “equally just.”
 
We could hear very soon whether the Supreme Court is going to revisit whether it’s time to do away with the death penalty in the United States. It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case. Just last term, Justice Stephen Breyer argued in decision that the Court should consider the constitutionality once again.
 
For anyone interested in this battle, I'd highly encourage you to read Ms. Walter's petition by clicking HERE.
 

Is Alabama’s Death Penalty Scheme on Life Support?

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, January 14, 2016

Today, by an 8-1 vote (Justice Alito dissenting), the US Supreme Court struck down Florida's death penalty sentencing scheme in Hurst v Florida . This is huge news in Alabama as our death penalty sentencing scheme is very similar.
 
Under Florida law, a capital offense only exposes a defendant to a punishment of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (“LWOP”). A defendant can be sentenced to death only after the court makes additional findings. Essentially, after the guilt phase, a court conducts a sentencing hearing where a jury will make a sentencing recommendation of LWOP or death. This recommendation is purely advisory. Then, the sentencing judge makes a determination of whether to impose LWOP or death.
 
The Court found this scheme violates Ring v. Arizona, which held that all facts necessary to impose death must be found by the jury. Only judicial -- and not jury -- fact-finding can expose a defendant to death under Florida law. Pursuant to Ring , this scheme violates the Sixth Amendment.
 
In Alabama, we have a similar scheme; however, by statute, a capital conviction exposes a defendant to LWOP or death -- a Florida conviction, standing alone, only exposes a defendant to LWOP. After receiving a recommendation from the jury, the Alabama judge makes the final determination of what sentence to impose. So the sentencing decision still falls upon the judge in Alabama.
 
Whether the Alabama system holds a distinction without a real difference from the Florida law will be litigated in the very near future. Regardless, the reins have been tightened a little more on the death penalty.
 
 
For more information on the decision, click 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.



 

 

Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up January 7th

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, January 07, 2016


Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from the past week that occurred around the state of Alabama:

 

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.



 

Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up December 29th

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, December 29, 2015


Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from the past week that occurred around the state of Alabama:

 

 

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.



Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up December 22nd

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, December 22, 2015


Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from the past week that occurred around the state of Alabama:

 

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.



 

Interesting Gun Control Battle in DC

J.D. Lloyd - Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Yesterday, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC vacated a district court decision that had previously enjoined a DC gun control measure. The DC ordinance essentially only allowed residents to register a handgun "for protection within the home." While the district court struck down the ordinance as violative of the 2nd Amendment, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision on the grounds that the lower court judge, who was sitting by special appointment, acted outside the power of his appointment.

 

 
Read the district court's decision and discussion on the Ordinance by clicking here.


 
Read the Court of Appeals decision vacating the district court's decision by clicking 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.



 

Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up December 9th

J.D. Lloyd - Wednesday, December 09, 2015


Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from the past week that occurred around the state of Alabama:

 

 

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.



Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up December 1st

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, December 01, 2015


Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from the past week that occurred around the state of Alabama:

 

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.


Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up November 23rd

J.D. Lloyd - Monday, November 23, 2015


Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from around the state of Alabama over the past week:

 

 

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.



CCA Caselaw Update - September and October 2015

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, November 12, 2015

Bolden v. State (CR-14-0657) (Fourth Amendment - Warrants)

Bolden was convicted of trafficking in marijuana and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. The central issue of this case was whether the affidavit for the search warrant that led to the discovery of the marijuana here was so lacking in probable cause that the evidence was due to be suppressed. AFFIRMED. Here, the Court took a rather quick look at the “totality of the circumstances” test under Illinois v. Gates and concluded that the warrant was sufficient. The Court also concluded that the “good faith” exception applied. Judge Welch wrote a rather scathing dissent, attacking the majority’s “totality” finding. I agree with Judge Welch here that the State’s affidavit was massively speculative and was not constitutionally sufficient under McIntosh v. State, 64 So. 3d 1142 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). This is a disappointing decision in the realm of Fourth Amendment litigation.

Knox v. State (CR-12-2019) (Traffic Stop; Reasonable suspicion to prolong detention)

This case stems from the circuit court’s granting of Knox’s motion to suppress marijuana found in his car pursuant to a warrantless search. Police became suspicious of Knox after they observed him driving at a very low speed on I-59. Knox saw the police officer and appeared startled and pulled his car into the emergency lane and stopped. The officer drove on and pulled over to wait until Knox resumed driving. Eventually, Knox passed the officer and changed lanes without signaling; Knox was stopped. The officer observed that Knox was driving a rental car that had a single key. Knox was “very nervous” during the encounter. Knox told the officer he was coming up from Houston. The officer told the court he was suspicious of someone coming from Houston since he knew many narcotics traffickers come from the southwest. Knox told the officer he was driving to Chattanooga for a family member’s funeral. He then changed his story that he was going to a close friend’s funeral. He told the office he did not know the deceased’s name. The passenger in the car also gave suspicious reasoning for going to Chattanooga and didn’t mention a funeral. The officer issued the citation and asked if they could continue on in a consensual encounter. Knox consented. The officer asked for consent to search, but Knox refused. A few minutes later, another officer arrived with a drug-sniffing dog, which alerted on the trunk. Marijuana was found inside. AFFIRMED. The Court found the totality of the circumstances justified further detention of Knox. NOTE: This case was on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court’s reversal in Ex parte Knox, No. 1131207, June 26, 2015. There, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals improperly considered an argument raised by the State of Alabama for the first time on appeal. For those of you who have read my discussions and complaints of Pollard v. State and the Court of Criminal Appeals’ ludicrous “preservation” discussion therein, Ex parte Knox is worth the read as it limits the atrocious holding in Pollard.

Bonds v. State (CR-13-1570) (Statutory Interpretation - School Employee Sex Offense)

Bonds pleaded guilty to one count of school employee who engaged in a sex act with a student under the age of 19, a violation of § 13A-6-81. At the time, Bonds was a resource officer with the Dothan High School. However, Bonds, at all relevant times, was an employee of the City of Dothan as an officer with the police department.

This case focused on whether Bonds was an “employee” of the school, and thus falling under the purview of this statute. The director of personnel for the city schools testified Bonds was not considered an employee of the school system and that school-resources officers were considered employees of the city, not the school. The personnel director for the city likewise testified that Bonds was considered an employee of the city, not the schools. Bonds moved to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that he was not a school employee as contemplated by the statute, but the court denied the motion. AFFIRMED. Even though Bonds is not considered a school “employee” by anyone, the Court affirmed Bonds’ conviction because the definition of “school employee” included people that are not actually “employees” of a school. Section 13A-6-80, Ala. Code 1975, provides: "For purposes of this article, school employee includes a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, safety or resource officer, coach, and other school employee.” Relying upon the plain wording of § 13A-6-80, the Court concluded that Bonds was, in fact, an employee of the school. Welch vehemently dissented here.

From an interpretive standpoint, this is one of the strangest and worst decisions we’ve seen out of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Here, the Court was faced with statutory language creating something that does not exist in reality -- an employee-employer relationship between Bond and the school system. The Court completely ignores how this statute must defer to reality -- if someone is not, in actuality, an employee of the school, the statute does not contemplate their inclusion. I look forward to seeing this fight at the Alabama Supreme Court.

McDaniels v. State (CR-13-1624) (Lesser-Included Instructions)

McDaniels was convicted of manslaughter after someone he sucker-punched at a bar died from a cranial hemorrhage. The victim head’s hit the ground extremely hard after McDaniels suck-punched him. However, other witnesses testified that the victim was picked up, seated in a chair, fell from the chair and hit his head again after being punched by McDaniels. At trial, McDaniels asked for a lesser-included instruction on assault 3rd -- with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he caused physical injury to any person. The trial court denied and McDaniels was convicted of manslaughter. REVERSED. The Court reversed, holding the evidence would have supported a conclusion that McDaniels only acted with the intent to injure the victim.

Demouey v. State (CR-14-0289) (Right to Public Trial; Closing a Trial)

Demouey was charged and convicted of various sex offenses involving C.F. When it was C.F.’s turn to testify, the State moved to close the proceedings on the ground that C.F. was shy and the testimony was difficult for her. The defense objected, but the court allowed the clearing of the court room. REVERSED. In reversing Demouey’s conviction, the Court detailed the history of challenges involving a defendant’s right to a public trial and the different showings required for partial closures (not everyone removed) and total closures (everyone removed). The focal point of these cases is Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984). There, the Court set forth a four-part test, which included the moving party showing “an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced” in order to obtain a total closure. Later, in Judd v. Haley, 250 F. 2d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit -- on 2254 review of an Alabama conviction -- concluded that even a temporary closure -- such as the closure for one witness like in this case -- constitutes a “total closure” and requires analysis under the four-part Waller test, including a showing of an “overriding interest.”

Here, the Court determined that removing everyone from Demouey’s trial during C.F.’s testimony constituted a total closure, but that total closure was not justified by an “overriding interest.” 

State v. Walker (CR-14-0765) (Dismissing indictments under Rule 13.5(c))

Walker was indicted for one count of first-degree theft of services. Walker had an agreement with a cab company that he would pay for services rendered within 30 days. Walker gave the cab company a check, but the bank would not honor the check as the account had been closed. Walker was still within the 30-day period. Prior to trial, Walker argued that he intended to pay before the 30-day window was up, that his matter was “essentially a civil suit,” and moved to dismiss the indictment on that ground. The court dismissed the indictment without explanation. REVERSED. The Court concluded that the circuit court did not have the power to dismiss the indictment because the issue Walker raised was not one enumerated n Rule 13.5(c)(1), Ala. R. Crim. P., which limits the grounds upon which an indictment would be dismissed. Walker argued that his claim presented a pure question of law and thus the circuit court could consider the issue under Ex parte Ankrom, 152 So. 3d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), which created a de facto-summary judgment mechanism to challenge whether actions could be contemplate by a criminal statute. The Court disagreed, concluding that the factual question of “intent” differentiates contract disputes and criminal theft cases.

Collins v. State  CR-13-1199 (Impeaching Witnesses; Rule 613, Ala. R. Evid.)

Here, the Court of Criminal Appeals took the extraordinary move of granting the State’s application for rehearing and switching it’s decision to reverse in August to affirming the conviction in October.  

Collins and co-defendant Walton were charged with numerous offenses stemming from a home invasion in Montgomery. At trial, Walton testified for the State, giving damning testimony for the prosecution. On cross-examination, the defense asked Walton, “"Have you ever made a statement to Mr. Collins that folk protect folk or disciples protect disciples, that that's why you were doing -- testifying in this case the way you have against Mr. Collins?" Walton denied making the statement. He admitted being a member of the “Disciples” gang, but stated that his testimony against Collins had nothing to do with the gang affiliation. Essentially, the defense’s theory was that Walton’s testimony was not truthful and was protecting some third party. The defense proffered the testimony of Marvin Gaston, a man who was incarcerated with Collins and Walton in a holding cell at the Montgomery County jail. Gatson would testify that Walton did make the statement. However, the trial court would not allow Gatson’s testimony on the grounds that it was hearsay. AFFIRMED. In August, the Court concluded that the circuit should have allowed the defense to impeachment Walton with Gaston’s testimony. Such impeachment evidence would have been proper under Rule 613, Ala. R. Evid. and, contrary to the trial court’s finding, was definitionally non-hearsay. However, on rehearing, the Court revisited that decision and concluded that the defense did not provide Walton with sufficient information regarding the particular circumstances under which the statement was made. The Court also concluded that if there were error here, the error was harmless under Rule 45, Ala. R. App. P. because of the strength of the State’s case against Collins.

This case goes to show that the Court of Criminal Appeals will reconsider on application for rehearing if you give them a good enough reason to.

Porter v. State (CR-13-1463) (Juror misconduct during voir dire)

Porter was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to LWOP. In her motion for new trial, Porter argued that juror misconduct entitled her to relief under Ex parte Dobyne and Ex parte Dixon. Specifically, Porter argued that a juror failed to disclose that he had six pending felony charges even though the State asked if any juror had been charged or convicted with any felonies. Porter alleged that she would have struck this juror had she known about his pending charges. The circuit court refused to grant relief, finding that there was “actual prejudice” from the juror’s failure to disclose. REVERSED. The Court held strong to the precedents in Ex parte Dobyne and Ex parte Dixon. The Court reaffirmed that a movant in this situation need only prove “probable prejudice,” which is satisfied by a showing that the movant would have struck the complained-of juror had the withheld information been disclosed.

Rudolph v. State (CR-14-1067) (Sexual abuse; Double-Jeopardy)

Rudolph was convicted of one count of first-degree rape of a child under the age of 12, one count of first-degree rape by forcible compulsion and one count of first-degree sexual abuse by forcible compulsion. The two rape convictions stemmed from the same incident; the sexual abuse conviction stemmed from an incident where he “pulled” on the accuser’s shoulders and tried to get on top of her, but she hit him in the head with a baseball bat, ending the encounter. He was sentenced to terms of 50 years’ imprisonment for the rape convictions and 10 years’ imprisonment for the sexual abuse conviction, all running consecutively. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. First, the Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the two rapes convictions. However, the Court reversed and rendered the sexual abuse conviction on the grounds that the alleged contact could not satisfy the definition of sexual contact under § 13A-6-60. The Court also observed a jurisdictional defect: Rudolph’s rape convictions stemmed from the same event and did not constitute separate offenses, and thus, he could only be punished once under the Double Jeopardy clause.

Washington v. State (CR-13-1369) (Felony murder/“felonies dangerous to human life)

Washington was convicted of felony murder and second-degree kidnapping. On appeal, Washington argued that his felony murder was based upon the a second-degree kidnapping, and, as such, his conviction should be vacated as second-degree felony is not an enumerated offence under § 13A-6-2(a)(3). AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. The Court affirmed Washington’s felony murder conviction on the grounds that a felony murder may be based upon any “felony clearly dangerous to human life.” The Court stated that it applies a factual, case-by-case analysis to felonies used as a bases for felony murder convictions under this clause. Under the facts here, the Court found that the second-degree kidnapping was clearly dangerous to human life. The Court remanded for the circuit court to vacate one of Washington’s sentences on the grounds that his LWOP sentences for both felony murder and second-degree kidnapping violated Double Jeopardy principles as one cannot be sentenced for felony murder and the underlying felony.

Green v. State (CR-14-1083) (Allocution)

Green pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment. However, before he was sentenced, the Court did not allow him the opportunity to speak. SENTENCE VACATED. The Court held that Rule 26.9(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., requires the Court to afford the defendant an opportunity to speak prior to sentencing. Failure to comply with that demands reversal of the sentencing hearing.

Crow v. State (CR-13-1659) (Unavailability of Child Witness under 15-25-31, 32)

In this child abuse case, the circuit court allowed out-of-court statements of the child-accuser on the grounds that the defendant had her sister remove the child from the jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. This case presents a strange, interesting factual discussion about what the defendant may or may not have done to cause the child-accuser to be absent from the jurisdiction. This case is light on legal discussion and heavy on facts.

Bradshaw v. Town of Argo (CR-14-1308) (Perfecting appeals from muni court)

This case involved the appeal from municipal court to circuit court and the defendant’s attempt to have his municipal charges dismissed on the grounds the municipal court failed to have his record timely transmitted pursuant to Rule 30.4, Ala. Crim. P. AFFIRMED. The Court concluded that the record on appeal did not clearly demonstrate that Bradshaw’s appeal was perfected on the date he alleged. As such, the transmission was timely under Rule 30.4.


Recent Posts


Tags

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

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.