CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

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?

 

Facts

 

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


Tags

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

Archive

DISCLAIMER

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.