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.


 

Trump Narrows His List for Supreme Court Replacement

J.D. Lloyd - Friday, January 27, 2017

 

It appears President Trump is close to naming former Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement to the U.S. Supreme Court.


 

After delivering a list of 21 possible candidates during his campaign, sources close to the selection process said that two names are left in the running, Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch and U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania. Some sources report that Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit may still be under consideration.

 

Judge Hardiman has maintained a consistently conservative stance on “hot button issues,” most notably in gun cases. Judge Hardiman has shown a robust view of the Second Amendment. Fun Fact: Hardiman has a direct connection to the President as he serves on the same court as Trump’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry.

 

Read more about Judge Hardiman here.

 

The other main candidate left, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2006. Many feel that this appointment, along with his similarities to Scalia in terms of legal writing, sets him up well to be appointed to the SCOTUS by a Republican president. His defense of religious liberties in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Age v. Burwell as well as his pro-life views regarding assisted suicide help mark him as a “solid conservative.” Cases such as United States v. Games-Perez have given his opportunity to use his extensive knowledge and application of legislative history.

 

Read more about Judge Gorsuch here.

 

Judge Pryor’s name has been thrown around for Supreme Court vacancies every since he ascended to the federal bench in 2003. One of his most well-known actions as attorney general for Alabama was removing Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore after Moore refused to follow a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the state’s Supreme Court building. Judge Pryor has spoken out against Roe v. Wade, and drawn much criticism for his position on abortion. He’s consistently ruled in the government’s favor in criminal cases. Although very conservative, Judge Pryor has voted to allow a transgender plaintiff to sue a State of Georgia office for firing her for her gender transition. Judge Pryor has also frequently voted for religious freedom.

 

Read more about Judge Pryor 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.



 


 


Recent Posts


Tags

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

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.