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.

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?




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


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



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.