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.


 

Supreme Court Update - New Protections Against Executing The Mentally Disabled

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, March 30, 2017

 

Moore v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, March 28/2017)

 

Moore was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In post-trial proceedings, a circuit court concluded that Mr. Moore was intellectually disabled and, thus, ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___ (2014). The circuit court based its decision on the most current medical guidelines. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) rejected that conclusion and re-instated Moore’s death sentence. The CCA concluded that the circuit court erred in not following factors laid out in Ex parte Briseno, 135 S. W. 3d 1( 2004), which relied upon medical authority from 1992. Moore appealed, claiming the CCA’s reasoning violated the Eighth Amendment.

 

REVERSED.

In Atkins, the Supreme Court opened the door to allow states to develop their own tests for determining intellectual disability and ineligibility for the death penalty. However, as the states have developed different tests, the Court has indicated it will review these procedures to determine whether the states have created “an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. at ___. Here, the Court took aim at Texas’ Atkins test for determining intellectual disability which was centered around out-dated medical information and court-created “factors” that have been widely criticized.

 

In holding that Mr. Moore was ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins, the circuit court relied on medical diagnostic standards coming from the 11th edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Development Disabilities (“AAIDD”) clinical manual and the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-5”) published by the American Psychiatric Association. The court followed the “generally accepted, uncontroversial intellectual-disability diagnostic definitions” in reaching their conclusion. Basically, the circuit court relied on the most up-to-date diagnostic material in assessing Moore.

 

The CCA rejected the circuit court’s conclusion and chastised it for not applying the Briseno test for determining intellectual disability. The Briseno test was based upon the 9th edition of the AAIDD and included a seven-factor test that was not grounded in any medical authority -- just a judicial creation. The CCA recognized that the standards in the AAIDD may have changed, but concluded that the Briseno test “remained adequately informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”

 

The Supreme Court concluded that the CCA’s reliance on out-dated medical information and “factors” that have been widely criticized and rejected in the legal and medical community could not comport with the Eighth Amendment as well as Atkins and Hall. While the State’s have leeway in formulating their own approach to addressing Atkins claims, the cornerstone of any scheme must be “the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”

 

 

Read the decision 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's Lethal Injection Survives Another Challenge

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, February 21, 2017

 

 

Today, the United States Supreme Court denied an Alabama death-row inmate’s request to review the constitutionality of Alabama’s three-drug execution protocol. Tommy Arthur argued that Alabama’s lethal injection cocktail violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because the method risks severe and unnecessary pain and suffering. The Court’s refusal to review the protocol almost certainly means that Tommy Arthur, who has been on death row for more than 30 years, will likely be executed soon. It also likely means that defendants who hope to challenge Alabama’s method of execution face a massive uphill battle in future fights.

 

Since lethal injection became the preferred method of execution in the 1980s, almost all states have used a three-drug cocktail to carry out the execution. The first drug administered would be a large amount of a sedative that’s supposed to knock the inmate unconscious and suppress all sensation. The second drug would be a paralytic, which would stop all muscular-skeletal movements, including the diaphragm. The final drug would cause the heart to stop.

 

Until recently, the first drug used in the three-drug protocol was either sodium thiopental. The manufacturer discontinued production of that drug, so states turned to pentobarbital. That drug also became unavailable in 2013. The states then turned to midazolam, the drug at the heart of recent Eighth Amendment litigation.

 

According to experts, midazolam doesn’t have the anesthetic effect of thiopental or pentobarbital. This is important because the second and third drugs administered in the the lethal injection process are extremely painful. Reports describe the pain from these drugs as a searing, burning pain spreading from the injection site throughout the body. Again, they literally stop your breathing and your heart. So, without a strong sedative, an inmate is likely facing an excruciating (and often prolonged) execution.

 

Executions using midazolam have been awful. Defendants executed with the drug in Oklahoma, Arizona, and Alabama died slowly and, apparently, very painfully when midazolam has been the first drug administered. (Justice Sotomayor’s dissent below details these executions.)

 

In challenging a method of execution as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, a defendant must show a readily available constitutional alternative. Here, Arthur argued that there was a constitutional alternative to lethal injection in Alabama: the firing squad. The lower federal courts rejected this claim because Alabama law doesn’t specifically provide for death-by-firing-squad. Because Arthur couldn’t prove a constitutional alternative, the court wouldn’t review his claim that the cocktail using midazolam was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

 

Justice Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent from the the Court’s refusal to consider this case. The dissent pointed out that Alabama recently amended its laws to allow for the execution of a defendant by “any constitutional method of execution.” See 15-18-82.1(c). Justice Sotomayor argued that Arthur met his burden of showing a constitutional alternative, even if that alternative wasn’t on the books in Alabama.

 

The dissent here was largely a critique on the lethal-injection protocol itself and the Court’s refusal to consider how screwed up our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has become when a defendant can show that a method of execution causes unnecessary (and unconstitutional) pain and suffering, but can still be executed with that method because a State doesn’t have another method of execution on the books.

 

Read Sotomayor’s dissent 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.



 


 

Alabama Death-Row Inmates Ask for SCOTUS Review

J.D. Lloyd - Friday, January 06, 2017

Today, the US Supreme Court is considering three cert petitions involving important questions challenging the Alabama capital sentencing scheme. Two challenges involve the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Hurst v. Florida, which held that any fact necessary to expose a defendant to the death penalty must be found by a jury, not a judge.

 

Two cert petitions involve Tommy Arthur, a man who’s been on Alabama’s death row for 30 years. One petition is a Hurst-based challenge. In that petition, Arthur (1) makes a general challenge to Alabama’s scheme under Hurst; (2) argues Hurst requires a unanimous jury vote for death (his vote for death was 11-1); and (3) claims Hurst applies retroactively.

 

Arthur’s second petition raises Eighth Amendment claims against Alabama’s execution protocol.

 

The Court is also considering a cert petition from Jerry Bohannon. While I do not have a copy of Bohannon’s cert petition, I would imagine he is raising claims similar to those he presented to the Alabama Supreme Court in his case that was decided in September 2016. There, the Court rejected a number of Hurst claims, most notably Bohannon’s challenge that Hurst requires a jury to decide the weight of aggravating factors against mitigating factors.

 

In Alabama, a judge makes the final sentencing determination and must decide that the aggravating factors of a case outweigh the mitigating factors in order to sentence a defendant to death. Under Alabama law (which is grounded in pre-Aprendi/Ring SCOTUS decisions), the weighing of aggravators versus mitigators is purely a job for the judge, not the jury. A fairly clear and long line of cases has held that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to conduct this weighing. Hurst calls this thinking into question.

 

I’m bearish on either case’s chance. I think Arthur has a better shot on the Eighth Amendment issue than the Sixth Amendment issue, but I don’t think he’d have the votes to do anything. Bohannon’s weighing claim is somewhat blunted by the fact that the jury recommended death by a vote of 11-1, so whatever error he claims might be harmless. Moreover, I don’t believe he raised a claim that Hurst requires juror unanimity, which probably would have helped. The Court should wait on a better vehicle – an override case - to take that issue up.

 

However, should the Court take up Bohannon’s case on the weighing issue, I think there’s a good chance the Court would rule in Bohannon’s favor and hold that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to determine the weight of aggravators versus mitigators. I think the votes are there. Ginsburg authored Ring, Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent in the denial of cert in Woodward v. AL, a case that challenged override in the pre-Hurst era, Breyer believes the Eighth Amendment requires a jury to find everything (even if he doesn’t like Ring) and joined Sotomayor’s dissent in Woodward, and Kagan, Kennedy, Thomas and Roberts were in the majority in Hurst.

 

Even if the Court doesn’t take up one of these two cases, I believe the writing is on the wall that the Court will be forced to take a closer look at Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme either this term or next.

 

 

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.



 

 

US Supreme Court Update - Utah v. Strieff

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, June 23, 2016


Background

 

The Salt Lake City PD received an anonymous tip regarding drug activity at a house. A detective watched the house and saw folks coming and leaving after only a short duration. To him, this evidenced drug activity going on inside. The detective observed Strieff leave the house. He followed Strieff and eventually stopped him. The detective asked for Strieff’s ID and found out that Strieff had an outstanding warrant on traffic tickets. He arrested Strieff and searched him as incident to that arrest. Of course, the detective finds meth and meth paraphernalia.

 

After being charged, Strieff moved to suppress the drug evidence on the grounds that the detective illegally detained him. The State conceded that the detective did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff, but argued that the “existence of the warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of contraband.” A lower court affirmed denial of the suppression motion, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed.

 

REVERSED

 

The Court concluded that the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of this evidence because the discovery of the warranted attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional police actions and the discovery of the drugs.

 

Long ago, the Court created the “exclusionary rule” to exclude unlawfully seized evidence, also referred to as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The Court has stressed that it’s to be applied so long as its “deterrence benefits outweigh the societal costs.” There are several exceptions to this rule, one of which is called “attenuation doctrine” which provides that suppression isn’t proper when the connection between the unconstitutional action and the seized evidence is either “remote” or interrupted by some “intervening circumstance.” At question here is the latter concern: was the discovery of a valid warrant an event sufficient to break the chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the drugs.

 

The Court employs a three-part test to answer this question: (1) What is the temporal proximity between the illegal conduct and the discovery of evidence? (2) What are the intervening circumstances?   (3) What was the purpose of the conduct and how flagrant was it?

 

While the Court found that the short time between the constitutional violation and discovery of the evidence favored suppression, the last two facts strongly favored not applying the exclusionary rule. Under the second prong, the existence of a valid warrant was a significant intervening circumstance. Once he discovered it, he was under an obligation to arrest Strieff. With respect to the final prong, the Court didn’t believe the detective’s actions were flagrant or part of “systemic or recurrent police misconduct”: while the initial detention was “at most negligent,” his actions after the stop were “lawful.”

 

The dissents in this case are quite strong. Justice Kagan’s dissent states that this decision effectively invites police to make illegal stop.

 

My Thoughts

 

If you look at this case objectively, the Court’s decision makes sense: if a police officer happens to learn someone has an outstanding valid warrant for their arrest, that officer has the duty to arrest them. If an arrest is made pursuant to a lawful warrant, police may search the arrestee. Thus, the search extends from the valid warrant.

 

But if you look at this case subjectively, the Supreme Court has given police officers leeway to engage in unconstitutional behavior. There’s really no way around it. The Court has told officers who would rather investigate outside the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment, “Hey, we’ve got your back in the borderline cases.” Count me in Justice Kagan’s camp.

 

 

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.



 

The Modern Debtor Prison System

J.D. Lloyd - Friday, April 08, 2016


One trend occurring in prisons around the country involves courts receiving revenue from the fining of those who have committed minor offenses. For those in poverty-stricken neighborhoods or cities, the results can be devastating as they end up in prison after not being able to pay these mounting fines. Last week, the New York Times published an editorial that explored a Justice Department motion in Ferguson, MO, a town that was put in the national spotlight in the wake of the Michael Brown case in 2014. The department said "state and local courts have an obligation to inquire about a person’s ability to pay fines and fees before jailing them for nonpayment." The Supreme Court has also dealt with such perceived "unconstitutional" issues that violate the 14th Amendment. The Ferguson plan hopes to secure measures that will help find better alternatives to imprisonment for someone's inability to pay hefty fines related to minor offenses.

 

 

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.



 

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.



 

 

Recent Posts


Tags

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

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.