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


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



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.