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

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

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.