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

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