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.


 


Recent Posts


Tags

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

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.