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

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

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.