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

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

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.