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



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.