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


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



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.