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

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

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.