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

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

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.