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.

Massive Death Penalty Reform in AL

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, April 11, 2017

The first bill signed into law by recently-elevated Gov. Kay Ivey repeals Alabama's "judicial override" provision in our death penalty sentencing laws. "Judicial override" refers to situations where a jury recommends that someone convicted of capital murder be punished with life without parole, but the judge "overrides" that recommendation to sentence the defendant to death.

In Alabama, capital murder trials go through two stages: the guilt stage and the penalty stage. In the guilt stage, a jury must decide whether a defendant committed the capital offense he's been charged with. If they convict, the case moves to the penalty phase. In the penalty phase, the State presents a case for the the death penalty and the defense makes a case for life without parole (LWOP). Death or LWOP are the only two sentences possible. The jury hears the evidence and makes a recommendation to the judge as to what the sentence should be. Under Alabama law, the jury has to vote 10-2 in favor of death to make a death recommendation to the court; anything lower is considered a recommendation for LWOP. The judge then has the final sentencing authority. A judge could "override" a jury's LWOP recommendation and sentence a defendant to life.


This practice has received extreme criticism through the years. Alabama is the last state to do away with judicial override.
Read more about it 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.

Supreme Court Update - New Protections Against Executing The Mentally Disabled

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, March 30, 2017


Moore v. Texas (U.S. Supreme Court, March 28/2017)


Moore was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In post-trial proceedings, a circuit court concluded that Mr. Moore was intellectually disabled and, thus, ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___ (2014). The circuit court based its decision on the most current medical guidelines. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) rejected that conclusion and re-instated Moore’s death sentence. The CCA concluded that the circuit court erred in not following factors laid out in Ex parte Briseno, 135 S. W. 3d 1( 2004), which relied upon medical authority from 1992. Moore appealed, claiming the CCA’s reasoning violated the Eighth Amendment.



In Atkins, the Supreme Court opened the door to allow states to develop their own tests for determining intellectual disability and ineligibility for the death penalty. However, as the states have developed different tests, the Court has indicated it will review these procedures to determine whether the states have created “an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed.” Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. at ___. Here, the Court took aim at Texas’ Atkins test for determining intellectual disability which was centered around out-dated medical information and court-created “factors” that have been widely criticized.


In holding that Mr. Moore was ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins, the circuit court relied on medical diagnostic standards coming from the 11th edition of the American Association on Intellectual and Development Disabilities (“AAIDD”) clinical manual and the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-5”) published by the American Psychiatric Association. The court followed the “generally accepted, uncontroversial intellectual-disability diagnostic definitions” in reaching their conclusion. Basically, the circuit court relied on the most up-to-date diagnostic material in assessing Moore.


The CCA rejected the circuit court’s conclusion and chastised it for not applying the Briseno test for determining intellectual disability. The Briseno test was based upon the 9th edition of the AAIDD and included a seven-factor test that was not grounded in any medical authority -- just a judicial creation. The CCA recognized that the standards in the AAIDD may have changed, but concluded that the Briseno test “remained adequately informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”


The Supreme Court concluded that the CCA’s reliance on out-dated medical information and “factors” that have been widely criticized and rejected in the legal and medical community could not comport with the Eighth Amendment as well as Atkins and Hall. While the State’s have leeway in formulating their own approach to addressing Atkins claims, the cornerstone of any scheme must be “the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”



Read the decision 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


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



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.