CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


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?




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


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



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.