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

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

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.