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

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

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.