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

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

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.